Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 508

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of cerebral pressure autoregulation in humans - a review of measurement methods

Panerai, Ronney B·1998·Physiological Measurement

Abstract

Assessment of cerebral autoregulation is an important adjunct to measurement of cerebral blood flow for diagnosis, monitoring or prognosis of cerebrovascular disease. The most common approach tests the effects of changes in mean arterial blood pressure on cerebral blood flow, known as pressure autoregulation. A 'gold standard' for this purpose is not available and the literature shows considerable disparity of methods and criteria. This is understandable because cerebral autoregulation is more a concept rather than a physically measurable entity. Static methods utilize steady-state values to test for changes in cerebral blood flow (or velocity) when mean arterial pressure is changed significantly. This is usually achieved with the use of drugs, shifts in blood volume or by observing spontaneous changes. The long time interval between measurements is a particular concern in many of the studies reviewed. Parallel changes in other critical variables, such as pCO2, haematocrit, brain activation and sympathetic tone, are rarely controlled for. Proposed indices of static autoregulation are based on changes in cerebrovascular resistance, on parameters of the linear regression of flow/velocity versus pressure changes, or only on the absolute changes in flow. The limitations of studies which assess patient groups rather than individual cases are highlighted. Newer methods of dynamic assessment are based on transient changes in cerebral blood flow (or velocity) induced by the deflation of thigh cuffs, Valsalva manoeuvres, tilting and induced or spontaneous oscillations in mean arterial blood pressure. Dynamic testing overcomes several limitations of static methods but it is not clear whether the two approaches are interchangeable. Classification of autoregulation performance using dynamic methods has been based on mathematical modelling, coherent averaging, transfer function analysis, crosscorrelation function or impulse response analysis. More research on reproducibility and inter-method comparisons is urgently needed, particularly involving the assessment of pressure autoregulation in individuals rather than patient groups.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0967-3334/19/3/001

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 508

Metadata

Authors
Panerai, R. B.
Venue
Physiological Measurement
Published
1998-08-01
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
305-338
ISSN
  • 0967-3334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6579
OpenAlex
W2022121530
Cited by
508
References
4
FWCI
5.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment of cerebral pressure autoregulation in humans - a review of measurement methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0967-3334/19/3/001
The paper
Panerai, R. B. (1998). Assessment of cerebral pressure autoregulation in humans - a review of measurement methods. Physiological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/19/3/001

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.