OBJECT: Because clinical examination and imaging may be unreliable indicators of intracranial hypertension, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement has been proposed as a noninvasive method of diagnosis. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the correlation between IOP and intracranial pressure (ICP) and the diagnostic accuracy of IOP measurement for detection of intracranial hypertension. METHODS: The authors searched bibliographic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1950 to March 2013, references of included studies, and conference abstracts for studies comparing IOP and invasive ICP measurement. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, and extracted data. Correlation coefficients, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird methods and bivariate random effects models. The I(2) statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Among 355 identified citations, 12 studies that enrolled 546 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled correlation coefficient between IOP and ICP was 0.44 (95% CI 0.26-0.63, I(2) = 97.7%, p < 0.001). The summary sensitivity and specificity for IOP for diagnosing intracranial hypertension were 81% (95% CI 26%-98%, I(2) = 95.2%, p < 0.01) and 95% (95% CI 43%-100%, I(2) = 97.7%, p < 0.01), respectively. The summary positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.8 (95% CI 0.5-417.7) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.02-1.7), respectively. When ICP and IOP measurements were taken within 1 hour of another, correlation between the measures improved. CONCLUSIONS: Although a modest aggregate correlation was found between IOP and ICP, the pooled diagnostic accuracy suggests that IOP measurement may be of clinical utility in the detection of intracranial hypertension. Given the significant heterogeneity between included studies, further investigation is required prior to the adoption of IOP in the evaluation of intracranial hypertension into routine practice.
OBJECT: Because clinical examination and imaging may be unreliable indicators of intracranial hypertension, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement has been proposed as a noninvasive method of diagnosis. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the correlation between IOP and intracranial pressure (ICP) and the diagnostic accuracy of IOP measurement for detection of intracranial hypertension. METHODS: The authors searched bibliographic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1950 to March 2013, references of included studies, and conference abstracts for studies comparing IOP and invasive ICP measurement. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, and extracted data. Correlation coefficients, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird methods and bivariate random effects models. The I(2) statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Among 355 identified citations, 12 studies that enrolled 546 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled correlation coefficient between IOP and ICP was 0.44 (95% CI 0.26-0.63, I(2) = 97.7%, p < 0.001). The summary sensitivity and specificity for IOP for diagnosing intracranial hypertension were 81% (95% CI 26%-98%, I(2) = 95.2%, p < 0.01) and 95% (95% CI 43%-100%, I(2) = 97.7%, p < 0.01), respectively. The summary positive and negative likelihood ratios were 14.8 (95% CI 0.5-417.7) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.02-1.7), respectively. When ICP and IOP measurements were taken within 1 hour of another, correlation between the measures improved. CONCLUSIONS: Although a modest aggregate correlation was found between IOP and ICP, the pooled diagnostic accuracy suggests that IOP measurement may be of clinical utility in the detection of intracranial hypertension. Given the significant heterogeneity between included studies, further investigation is required prior to the adoption of IOP in the evaluation of intracranial hypertension into routine practice.
Authors: Mohammad Nadir Haider; John J Leddy; Andrea L Hinds; Nell Aronoff; Diane Rein; David Poulsen; Barry S Willer Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Ilhan Ece; Celalettin Vatansev; Tevfik Kucukkartallar; Ahmet Tekin; Adil Kartal; Mehmet Okka Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 3.411