ReviewBrain sciences2025
Cerebral Perfusion Pressure in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors and Non-Survivors: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Brain sciences, 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.
- Advances in Multimodality Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- Risk factors for postoperative cognitive dysfunction in geriatric trauma: a dual-pathway perspective.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), the difference between mean arterial and intracranial pressure, is crucial for maintaining cerebral blood flow. However, the optimal CPP threshold for improving outcomes remains uncertain.
objectiveTo identify CPP levels associated with favorable outcomes following sTBI through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to February 2024 for studies involving adult sTBI patients admitted to intensive care units. Studies reporting CPP in relation to outcomes measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) were included. Pooled mean CPP differences between outcome groups were calculated using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and evidence certainty was evaluated with GRADE.
resultsTwenty-two studies with 2986 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients with good outcomes (GOS > 3) had higher CPP (77.5 mmHg; 95% CI: 73.8-81.2) than those with poor outcomes (67.2 mmHg; 95% CI: 60.4-74.1), with a mean difference of 10.01 mmHg (95% CI: 4.23-15.80;
conclusionsHigher CPP levels (~75-80 mmHg) are associated with better survival and functional outcomes after sTBI, supporting individualized, multimodal CPP management rather than a fixed 60 mmHg threshold.
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.