Can we demonstrate the efficacy of monitoring?

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

Volumn 25, Issue SUPPL. 42, 2008, Pages 94-97

  Zygun, D ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b FOOTHILLS HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Critical care; Measurement and monitoring; Neuroscience

Indexed keywords

ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; INTRACRANIAL HYPERTENSION; NEUROSCIENCE; PATIENT MONITORING; REVIEW; TISSUE OXYGENATION; WAVEFORM; ARTICLE; BRAIN ISCHEMIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; INSTRUMENTATION; INTENSIVE CARE UNIT; METHODOLOGY; MONITORING; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BRAIN ISCHEMIA; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CRITICAL CARE; HUMANS; INTENSIVE CARE; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 43149102276     PISSN: 02650215     EISSN: 13652346     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026502150700347X     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Suarez JI. Outcome in neurocritical care: advances in monitoring and treatment and effect of a specialized neurocritical care team. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: S232-S238.
2. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1993; 270: 2598-2601.
3. Gnaegi A, Feihl F, Perret C. Intensive care physicians' insufficient knowledge of right-heart catheterization at the bedside: time to act? Crit Care Med 1997; 25: 213-220.
4. Iberti TJ, Daily EK, Leibowitz AB, Schecter CB, Fischer EP, Silverstein JH. Assessment of critical care nurses' knowledge of the pulmonary artery catheter. The Pulmonary Artery Catheter Study Group. Crit Care Med 1994; 22: 1674-1678.
5. Iberti TJ, Fischer EP, Leibowitz AB, Panacek EA, Silverstein JH, Albertson TE. A multicenter study of physicians' knowledge of the pulmonary artery catheter. Pulmonary Artery Catheter Study Group. JAMA 1990; 264: 2928-2932.
6. Williams GW, Luders HO, Brickner A, Goormastic M, Klass DW. Interobserver variability in EEG interpretation. Neurology 1985; 35: 1714-1719.
7. Leira EC, Bertrand ME, Hogan RE et al. Continuous or emergent EEG: can bedside caregivers recognize epileptiform discharges? Intensive Care Med 2004; 30: 207-212.
8. Guendling K, Smielewski P, Czosnyka M et al. Use of ICM+ software for on-line analysis of intracranial and arterial pressures in head-injured patients. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2006; 96: 108-113.
9. Bulger EM, Nathens AB, Rivara FP, Moore M, MacKenzie EJ, Jurkovich GJ. Management of severe head injury: institutional variations in care and effect on outcome. Crit Care Med 2002; 30: 1870-1876.
10. Eker C, Asgeirsson B, Grande PO, Schalen W, Nordstrom CH. Improved outcome after severe head injury with a new therapy based on principles for brain volume regulation and preserved microcirculation. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 1881-1886.
11. Fakhry SM, Trask AL, Waller MA, Watts DD. Management of brain-injured patients by an evidence-based medicine protocol improves outcomes and decreases hospital charges. J Trauma 2004; 56: 492-499; discussion 499-500.
12. Patel HC, Menon DK, Tebbs S, Hawker R, Hutchinson PJ, Kirkpatrick PJ. Specialist neurocritical care and outcome from head injury. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28: 547-553.
13. Rosner MJ, Rosner SD, Johnson AH. Cerebral perfusion pressure: management protocol and clinical results. J Neurosurg 1995; 83: 949-962.
14. Ng I, Lew TW, Yeo TT et al. Outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury managed on a standardised head injury protocol. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1998; 27: 332-339.
15. Clifton GL, Choi SC, Miller ER et al. Intercenter variance in clinical trials of head trauma - experience of the National Acute Brain Injury Study: Hypothermia. J Neurosurg 2001; 95: 751-755.
16. Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 5-14.
17. Rotstein D, Laupacis A. Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20: 177-183.