| Title |
Can intracranial pressure be measured non-invasively bedside using a two-depth Doppler-technique?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10877-016-9862-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars-Owe D. Koskinen, Jan Malm, Rolandas Zakelis, Laimonas Bartusis, Arminas Ragauskas, Anders Eklund |
| Abstract |
Measurement of intracranial pressure (ICP) is necessary in many neurological and neurosurgical diseases. To avoid lumbar puncture or intracranial ICP probes, non-invasive ICP techniques are becoming popular. A recently developed technology uses two-depth Doppler to compare arterial pulsations in the intra- and extra-cranial segments of the ophthalmic artery for non-invasive estimation of ICP. The aim of this study was to investigate how well non-invasively-measured ICP and invasively-measured cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure correlate. We performed multiple measurements over a wide ICP span in eighteen elderly patients with communicating hydrocephalus. As a reference, an automatic CSF infusion apparatus was connected to the lumbar space. Ringer's solution was used to create elevation to pre-defined ICP levels. Bench tests of the infusion apparatus showed a random error (95 % CI) of less than ±0.9 mmHg and a systematic error of less than ±0.5 mmHg. Reliable Doppler signals were obtained in 13 (72 %) patients. An infusion test could not be performed in one patient. Thus, twelve patients and a total of 61 paired data points were studied. The correlation between invasive and non-invasive ICP measurements was good (R = 0.74), and the 95 % limits of agreements were -1.4 ± 8.8 mmHg. The within-patient correlation varied between 0.47 and 1.00. This non-invasive technique is promising, and these results encourage further development and evaluation before the method can be recommended for use in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 20% |
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 42% |
| Engineering | 7 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,315,221
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#570
of 676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,253
of 299,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.