Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 42, No. 1, 2006
Issue release date: December 2005
Section title: Original Paper
Pediatr Neurosurg 2006;42:28–34
(DOI:10.1159/000089506)

Assessment of Quality of Continuous Intracranial Pressure Recordings in Children

Eide P.K.
Department of Neurosurgery, The National Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway

Do you have an account?

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
  • Reduced rates with a PPV account
read more

Direct: USD 38.00
Account: USD 26.50

Select

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: 4/11/2005
Accepted: 7/7/2005
Published online: 12/16/2005
Issue release date: December 2005

Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 1016-2291 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0305 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/PNE

Abstract

Background: Bad quality of continuous intracranial pressure (ICP) recordings may potentially give wrong diagnostic information. Method: This study examined the ICP recordings of 33 children undergoing ICP monitoring during a 12-month period. Their ICP recordings were stored as raw data files and analyzed retrospectively. An automatic algorithm applied to every subsequent 6-second time window of each recording assessed the quality of ICP recordings. Time windows containing 4–18 cardiac beat-induced single ICP waves were accepted; time windows containing artifact-induced pressure waves due to noise in the signal were rejected. For every ICP recording, the number of accepted and rejected time windows were determined. In addition, the raw data ICP signal was assessed by visual inspection to verify the automatic algorithm. Two methods of computing mean pressure of a time window are compared; mean ICP was either computed according to current practice independent of the presence or absence of single ICP waves or computed only for single ICP waves within the time window (meanSW ICP). Results:In 4 of the 33 patients (12%), more than 70% of the time windows of their ICP recordings were rejected; in 3 patients 95–100% of time windows were rejected. Visual inspection of the raw ICP signals confirmed the absence of single ICP waves. In these cases, computing meanSW ICP, not by mean ICP, revealed the bad signal quality. Conclusions: This retrospective study showed that in 3 of 33 patients (9%) the quality of the ICP recordings was so bad that they gave wrong diagnostic information. One way of obtaining quality control is to compute meanSW ICP, determined only for cardiac beat-induced single ICP waves within a time window.

© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: 4/11/2005
Accepted: 7/7/2005
Published online: 12/16/2005
Issue release date: December 2005

Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 1016-2291 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0305 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/PNE


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.