ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Optimal cerebrovascular reactivity thresholds for the determination of individualized intracranial pressure thresholds in traumatic brain injury: a CAHR-TBI cohort study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Value of Cerebrovascular Reactivity (PRx) Versus Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A novel algorithm for the continuous determination of individualized intracranial pressure (iICP) thresholds using a multi-window weighted approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It has been demonstrated that patient-specific intracranial pressure (ICP) thresholds are possible to derive using the function intersectionality between ICP and cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR). Such individualized ICP (iICP) thresholds represent a potential personalized medicine approach to neurocritical care management. However, it is currently unknown how various CVR thresholds compare in regard to deriving iICP. Here we attempt to identify the CVR thresholds that are best suited for iICP derivation. Leveraging 365 patient data sets from the CAnadian High-Resolution TBI (CAHR-TBI) Research Collaborative, iICP was derived using three ICP-based CVR indices: the pressure reactivity index (PRx); the pulse amplitude index (PAx); and the RAC index, and thresholds ranging from - 1 to + 1, in 0.05 increments. Patients were dichotomized based on 6-month outcome scores into Alive vs. Dead and Favorable vs. Unfavorable outcome. 2 × 2 tables were created for each threshold, grouping patients by outcome and whether their mean ICP was greater or less than their calculated iICP. Chi-squares were calculated for each table and subsequently plotted. The thresholds that produced the largest Chi-square values were identified as those able to derive the iICP with the greatest ability to predict outcomes. Next, Spearman rank correlation testing was used to evaluate associations between iICP, for each threshold, and measures of cerebral physiologic insult burden. With consideration of yield data, ability to predict outcome, and association with cerebral physiologic insult burden, a threshold of + 0.05 was identified for PRx. No optimal threshold could be identified for PAx or RAC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.