↓ Skip to main content

Optic nerve sheath diameter measured sonographically as non-invasive estimator of intracranial pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
262 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
316 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Optic nerve sheath diameter measured sonographically as non-invasive estimator of intracranial pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5305-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chiara Robba, Gregorio Santori, Marek Czosnyka, Francesco Corradi, Nicola Bragazzi, Llewellyn Padayachy, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Giuseppe Citerio

Abstract

Although invasive intracranial devices (IIDs) are the gold standard for intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement, ultrasonography of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) has been suggested as a potential non-invasive ICP estimator. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of sonographic ONSD measurement for assessment of intracranial hypertension (IH) in adult patients. We searched on electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed®, Scopus®, Web of Science®, ScienceDirect®, Cochrane Library®) until 31 May 2018 for comparative studies that evaluated the efficacy of sonographic ONSD vs. ICP measurement with IID. Data were extracted independently by two authors. We used the QUADAS-2 tool for assessing the risk of bias (RB) of each study. A diagnostic meta-analysis following the bivariate approach and random-effects model was performed. Seven prospective studies (320 patients) were evaluated for IH detection (assumed with ICP > 20 mmHg or > 25 cmH2O). The accuracy of included studies ranged from 0.811 (95% CI 0.678‒0.847) to 0.954 (95% CI 0.853‒0.983). Three studies were at high RB. No significant heterogeneity was found for the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), with I2 < 50% for each parameter. The pooled DOR, PLR and NLR were 67.5 (95% CI 29‒135), 5.35 (95% CI 3.76‒7.53) and 0.088 (95% CI 0.046‒0.152), respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUHSROC) was 0.938. In the subset of five studies (275 patients) with IH defined for ICP > 20 mmHg, the pooled DOR, PLR and NLR were 68.10 (95% CI 26.8‒144), 5.18 (95% CI 3.59‒7.37) and 0.087 (95% CI 0.041‒0.158), respectively, while the AUHSROC was 0.932. Although the wide 95% CI in our pooled DOR suggests caution, ultrasonographic ONSD may be a potentially useful approach for assessing IH when IIDs are not indicated or available (CRD42018089137, PROSPERO).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 266 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 316 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 316 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 38 12%
Other 37 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 9%
Researcher 25 8%
Student > Master 22 7%
Other 63 20%
Unknown 102 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 146 46%
Engineering 12 4%
Neuroscience 11 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Other 18 6%
Unknown 120 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 189. 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 11 August 2023.
All research outputs
#215,102
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#158
of 5,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,256
of 323,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#2
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 323,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.