The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A management algorithm for adult patients with both brain oxygen and intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC)
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the treatment of adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) consist of high-quality evidence reports, but they are no longer accompanied by management protocols, as these require expert opinion to bridge the gap between published evidence and patient care. We aimed to establish a modern sTBI protocol for adult patients with both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain oxygen monitors in place. METHODS: Our consensus working group consisted of 42 experienced and actively practicing sTBI opinion leaders from six continents. Having previously established a protocol for the treatment of patients with ICP monitoring alone, we addressed patients who have a brain oxygen monitor in addition to an ICP monitor. The management protocols were developed through a Delphi-method-based consensus approach and were finalized at an in-person meeting. RESULTS: We established three distinct treatment protocols, each with three tiers whereby higher tiers involve therapies with higher risk. One protocol addresses the management of ICP elevation when brain oxygenation is normal. A second addresses management of brain hypoxia with normal ICP. The third protocol addresses the situation when both intracranial hypertension and brain hypoxia are present. The panel considered issues pertaining to blood transfusion and ventilator management when designing the different algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: These protocols are intended to assist clinicians in the management of patients with both ICP and brain oxygen monitors but they do not reflect either a standard-of-care or a substitute for thoughtful individualized management. These protocols should be used in conjunction with recommendations for basic care, management of critical neuroworsening and weaning treatment recently published in conjunction with the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care
Hébert, P. C., Wells, G., Blajchman, M. A., Marshall, J., Martin, C., Pagliarello, G., Tweeddale, M., Schweitzer, I., & Yetisir, E. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199902113400601 · Cited by 5,187
Metadata
- Authors
- Chesnut, R., Aguilera, S., Buki, A., Bulger, E., Citerio, G., Cooper, D. J., Arrastia, R. D., Diringer, M., Figaji, A., Gao, G., Geocadin, R., Ghajar, J., Harris, O., Hoffer, A., Hutchinson, P., Joseph, M., Kitagawa, R., Manley, G., Mayer, S., Menon, D. K., Meyfroidt, G., Michael, D. B., Oddo, M., Okonkwo, D., Patel, M., Robertson, C., Rosenfeld, J. V., Rubiano, A. M., Sahuquillo, J., Servadei, F., Shutter, L., Stein, D., Stocchetti, N., Taccone, F. S., Timmons, S., Tsai, E., Ullman, J. S., Vespa, P., Videtta, W., Wright, D. W., Zammit, C., & Hawryluk, G. W. J.
- Venue
- Intensive Care Medicine
- Published
- 2020-01-21
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 919-929
- ISSN
- 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1238
- OpenAlex
- W3002232662
- Cited by
- 413
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
