Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 328

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of intracranial pressure monitoring and targeted intensive care on functional outcome after severe head injury*

Cremer, Olaf L., van Dijk, Gert W., van Wensen, Erik, Brekelmans, Geert J. F., Moons, Karel G. M., Leenen, Loek P. H., Kalkman, Cor J.·2005·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: : Intracranial hypertension after severe head injury is associated with case fatality, but there is no sound evidence that monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP) and targeted management of cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) improve outcome, despite widespread recommendation by experts in the field. The purpose was to determine the effect of ICP/CPP-targeted intensive care on functional outcome and therapy intensity levels after severe head injury. DESIGN: : Retrospective cohort study with prospective assessment of outcome. SETTING: : Two level I trauma centers in The Netherlands from 1996 to 2001. PATIENTS: : Three hundred thirty-three patients who had survived and remained comatose for >24 hrs, from a total of 685 consecutive severely head-injured adults. INTERVENTIONS: : In center A (supportive intensive care), mean arterial pressure was maintained at approximately 90 mm Hg, and therapeutic interventions were based on clinical observations and computed tomography findings. In center B (ICP/CPP-targeted intensive care), management was aimed at maintaining ICP <20 mm Hg and CPP >70 mm Hg. Allocation to either trauma center was solely based on the site of the accident. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: : We measured extended Glasgow Outcome Scale after >/=12 months. Patient characteristics were well balanced between the centers. ICP monitoring was used in zero of 122 (0%) and 142 of 211 (67%) patients in centers A and B, respectively. In-hospital mortality rate was 41 (34%) vs. 69 (33%; p = .87). The odds ratio for a more favorable functional outcome following ICP/CPP-targeted therapy was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.44). This result remained after adjustment for potential confounders. Sedatives, vasopressors, mannitol, and barbiturates were much more frequently used in center B (all p < .01). The median number of days on ventilator support in survivors was 5 (25th-75th percentile, 2-9) in center A vs. 12 (7-19) in center B (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: : ICP/CPP-targeted intensive care results in prolonged mechanical ventilation and increased levels of therapy intensity, without evidence for improved outcome in patients who survive beyond 24 hrs following severe head injury.

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 · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000181300.99078.b5

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 328

Metadata

Authors
Cremer, O. L., van Dijk, G. W., van Wensen, E., Brekelmans, G. J. F., Moons, K. G. M., Leenen, L. P. H., & Kalkman, C. J.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2005-10
Volume
33
Issue
10
Pages
2207-2213
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147291804
Cited by
328
References
3
FWCI
7.46
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: Effect of intracranial pressure monitoring and targeted intensive care on functional outcome after severe head injury*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000181300.99078.b5
The paper
Cremer, O. L., van Dijk, G. W., van Wensen, E., Brekelmans, G. J. F., Moons, K. G. M., Leenen, L. P. H., & Kalkman, C. J. (2005). Effect of intracranial pressure monitoring and targeted intensive care on functional outcome after severe head injury*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000181300.99078.b5

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.