↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of intracranial pressure monitoring: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Accuracy of intracranial pressure monitoring: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1137-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucia Zacchetti, Sandra Magnoni, Federica Di Corte, Elisa R. Zanier, Nino Stocchetti

Abstract

Intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement is used to tailor interventions and to assist in formulating the prognosis for traumatic brain injury patients. Accurate data are therefore essential. The aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of ICP monitoring systems on the basis of a literature review. A PubMed search was conducted from 1982 to 2014, plus additional references from the selected papers. Accuracy was defined as the degree of correspondence between the pressure read by the catheter and a reference "real" ICP measurement. Studies comparing simultaneous readings from at least two catheters were included. Drift was defined as the loss of accuracy over the monitoring period. Meta-analyses of data from the studies were used to estimate the overall mean difference between simultaneous ICP measurements and their variability. Individual studies were weighted using both a fixed and a random effects model. Of 163 articles screened, 83 compared two intracranial catheters: 64 reported accuracy and 37 drift (some reported both). Of these, 10 and 17, respectively, fulfilled the inclusion criteria for accuracy and zero drift analysis. The combined mean differences between probes were 1.5 mmHg (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.7-2.3) with the random effects model and 1.6 mmHg (95 % CI 1.3-1.9) with the fixed effects model. The reported mean drift over a long observation period was 0.75 mmHg. No relation was found with the duration of monitoring or differences between various probes. This study confirms that the average error between ICP measures is clinically negligible. The random effects model, however, indicates that a high percentage of readings may vary over a wide range, with clinical implications both for future comparison studies and for daily care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 124 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Other 16 13%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 41%
Engineering 10 8%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Psychology 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 40 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 04 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,275,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,082
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,221
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#63
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 395,397 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.