Background: Intracranial multimodal monitoring (iMMM) is increasingly used in neurocritical care, but a lack of standardization hinders its evidence-based development. Here, we devised core outcome sets (COS) and reporting guidelines to harmonize iMMM practices and research. Methods: An open, decentralized, three-round Delphi consensus study involved experts between December 2023 and June 2024. Items—spanning three domains: (i) patient characteristics, (ii) practices, and (iii) outcomes—with ≥ 75% agreement were classified as strong agreement, while those with 50–75% were reconsidered in subsequent rounds, requiring ≥ 66% for moderate agreement. Results: An international, multidisciplinary panel comprised 58 neurocritical physicians and researchers with low attrition (12%). They were predominantly from Western regions (96%), actively involved in iMMM (82%), at least weekly (72.4%), with more than 10 years of specific experience (57%). Of the 127 items assessed for inclusion in COS and reporting guidelines, 45 (35.4%) reached strong and 8 (6.3%) moderate agreement. Main strong agreement items were: (i) demographics: age (98%) and sex/gender (90%); comorbidities: coagulation/platelet disorders (95%); initial scoring: Glasgow Coma Scale (97%) and pathology-specific scores (90%); active treatments: antithrombotics (95%) (ii) clinical practice: iMMM implantation indications (98%) and iMMM-guided interventions (91%); surgical practice: targeting strategies (97%) and concomitant external ventricular drainage (97%); technical details: recording modalities (98%); (iii) monitoring parameters: duration (97%) and triggered interventions (95%); standardized outcome reporting (93%); surgical complications (e.g., postoperative intracranial hemorrhages, CNS infections, and probe misplacement, all > 90%) and adverse events (accidental dislodgement, probe breakage, and technical malfunctions, all > 90%). Conclusion: This consensus establishes foundational COS and reporting guidelines for iMMM in neurocritical care. These harmonization tools can enhance research quality, comparability, and reproducibility, facilitating evidence-based practices for this emerging technology. However, challenges remain in developing purpose-specific guidelines and adapting them to diverse clinical and research settings.
Barrit, S., Al Barajraji, M., El Hadwe, S., Niset, A., Foreman, B., Park, S., et al. (2024). Intracranial multimodal monitoring in neurocritical care (Neurocore-iMMM): an open, decentralized consensus. CRITICAL CARE, 28(1) [10.1186/s13054-024-05211-8].
Intracranial multimodal monitoring in neurocritical care (Neurocore-iMMM): an open, decentralized consensus
Citerio G.;Carrabba G. G.;
2024
Abstract
Background: Intracranial multimodal monitoring (iMMM) is increasingly used in neurocritical care, but a lack of standardization hinders its evidence-based development. Here, we devised core outcome sets (COS) and reporting guidelines to harmonize iMMM practices and research. Methods: An open, decentralized, three-round Delphi consensus study involved experts between December 2023 and June 2024. Items—spanning three domains: (i) patient characteristics, (ii) practices, and (iii) outcomes—with ≥ 75% agreement were classified as strong agreement, while those with 50–75% were reconsidered in subsequent rounds, requiring ≥ 66% for moderate agreement. Results: An international, multidisciplinary panel comprised 58 neurocritical physicians and researchers with low attrition (12%). They were predominantly from Western regions (96%), actively involved in iMMM (82%), at least weekly (72.4%), with more than 10 years of specific experience (57%). Of the 127 items assessed for inclusion in COS and reporting guidelines, 45 (35.4%) reached strong and 8 (6.3%) moderate agreement. Main strong agreement items were: (i) demographics: age (98%) and sex/gender (90%); comorbidities: coagulation/platelet disorders (95%); initial scoring: Glasgow Coma Scale (97%) and pathology-specific scores (90%); active treatments: antithrombotics (95%) (ii) clinical practice: iMMM implantation indications (98%) and iMMM-guided interventions (91%); surgical practice: targeting strategies (97%) and concomitant external ventricular drainage (97%); technical details: recording modalities (98%); (iii) monitoring parameters: duration (97%) and triggered interventions (95%); standardized outcome reporting (93%); surgical complications (e.g., postoperative intracranial hemorrhages, CNS infections, and probe misplacement, all > 90%) and adverse events (accidental dislodgement, probe breakage, and technical malfunctions, all > 90%). Conclusion: This consensus establishes foundational COS and reporting guidelines for iMMM in neurocritical care. These harmonization tools can enhance research quality, comparability, and reproducibility, facilitating evidence-based practices for this emerging technology. However, challenges remain in developing purpose-specific guidelines and adapting them to diverse clinical and research settings.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Barrit-2024-Critical Care-VoR.pdf
accesso aperto
Descrizione: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Tipologia di allegato:
Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Licenza:
Creative Commons
Dimensione
917.38 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
917.38 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.