Inconsistency in reporting variables related to intracranial pressure measurement in scientific literature

Niyatee P. Samudra, Soo M. Park, Sara E. Gray, Mohammed A. Sebai, Daiwai Olson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations


Purpose: To assess whether the collection and communication of intracranial pressure (ICP) values were standardized and reproducible. Methods: Integrative review of clinical trials (n = 357) reporting ICP as a variable. Results: Only 24.1% of studies reported adequate data required for replication. Of the 357 reports, 342 provided information about the design, 274 discussed sampling strategy, 294 identified the ICP device type, 312 provided a unit of measure, 121 provided anatomical localization for measuring ICP, and 83 provided information about patient positioning. Conclusions: The majority of literature evaluated did not provide enough data for replication of results. Measuring and reporting ICP in the scientific literature is not standardized. A uniform standard would strengthen the quality of the evidence in neurocritical care and neurosurgical literature and better establish clinical guidelines for ICP management in neurologically injured patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)415-424
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Nursing Measurement
Issue number3
StatePublished - Dec 2018


  • Internal validity
  • Intracranial pressure
  • Measurement
  • Reproducibility
  • Research design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Inconsistency in reporting variables related to intracranial pressure measurement in scientific literature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this