Search

ObjectiveTo appraise the currency, completeness and quality of evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).MethodsWe conducted comprehensive searches to March 2016 for published, English-language SRs and RCTs of acute management of moderate to severe TBI. Systematic reviews and RCTs were grouped under 12 broad intervention categories. For each review, we mapped the included and non-included RCTs, noting the reasons why RCTs were omitted. An SR was judged as 'current' when it included the most recently published RCT we found on their topic, and 'complete' when it included every RCT we found that met its inclusion criteria, taking account of when the review was conducted. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist (trichotomised into low, moderate and high quality).FindingsWe included 85 SRs and 213 RCTs examining the effectiveness of treatments for acute management of moderate to severe TBI. The most frequently reviewed interventions were hypothermia (n = 17, 14.2%), hypertonic saline and/or mannitol (n = 9, 7.5%) and surgery (n = 8, 6.7%). Of the 80 single-intervention SRs, approximately half (n = 44, 55%) were judged as current and two-thirds (n = 52, 65.0%) as complete. When considering only the most recently published review on each intervention (n = 25), currency increased to 72.0% (n = 18). Less than half of the 85 SRs were judged as high quality (n = 38, 44.7%), and nearly 20% were low quality (n = 16, 18.8%). Only 16 (20.0%) of the single-intervention reviews (and none of the five multi-intervention reviews) were judged as current, complete and high-quality. These included reviews of red blood cell transfusion, hypothermia, management guided by intracranial pressure, pharmacological agents (various) and prehospital intubation. Over three-quarters (n = 167, 78.4%) of the 213 RCTs were included in one or more SR. Of the remainder, 17 (8.0%) RCTs post-dated or were out of scope of existing SRs, and 29 (13.6%) were on interventions that have not been assessed in SRs.ConclusionA substantial number of SRs in acute management of moderate to severe TBI lack currency, completeness and quality. We have identified both potential evidence gaps and also substantial research waste. Novel review methods, such as Living Systematic Reviews, may ameliorate these shortcomings and enhance utility and reliability of the evidence underpinning clinical care.

There is a growing literature on the impact of genetic variation on outcome in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Whereas a substantial proportion of these publications have focused on the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, several have explored the influence of other polymorphisms. We undertook a systematic review of the impact of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in non-apolipoprotein E (non-APOE) genes associated with patient outcomes in adult TBI). We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and gray literature from inception to the beginning of August 2017 for studies of genetic variance in relation to patient outcomes in adult TBI. Sixty-eight articles were deemed eligible for inclusion into the systematic review. The SNPs described were in the following categories: neurotransmitter (NT) in 23, cytokine in nine, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in 12, mitochondrial genes in three, and miscellaneous SNPs in 21. All studies were based on small patient cohorts and suffered from potential bias. A range of SNPs associated with genes coding for monoamine NTs, BDNF, cytokines, and mitochondrial proteins have been reported to be associated with variation in global, neuropsychiatric, and behavioral outcomes. An analysis of the tissue, cellular, and subcellular location of the genes that harbored the SNPs studied showed that they could be clustered into blood-brain barrier associated, neuroprotective/regulatory, and neuropsychiatric/degenerative groups. Several small studies report that various NT, cytokine, and BDNF-related SNPs are associated with variations in global outcome at 6-12 months post-TBI. The association of these SNPs with neuropsychiatric and behavioral outcomes is less clear. A definitive assessment of role and effect size of genetic variation in these genes on outcome remains uncertain, but could be clarified by an adequately powered genome-wide association study with appropriate recording of outcomes.

Contains fulltext : 251563.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Despite being well established, acute surgery in traumatic acute subdural haematoma is based on low-grade evidence. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of a strategy preferring acute surgical evacuation with one preferring initial conservative treatment in acute subdural haematoma. METHODS: We did a prospective, observational, comparative effectiveness study using data from participants enrolled in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) cohort. We included patients with no pre-existing severe neurological disorders who presented with acute subdural haematoma within 24 h of traumatic brain injury. Using an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference for acute subdural haematoma (acute surgical evacuation or initial conservative treatment), measured by the case-mix-adjusted percentage of acute surgery per centre. The primary endpoint was functional outcome at 6 months as rated with the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, which was estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR) and adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median OR (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582). FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2014 and Dec 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI, of whom 1407 (31%) presented with acute subdural haematoma and were included in our study. Acute surgical evacuation was done in 336 (24%) patients, by craniotomy in 245 (73%) of those patients and by decompressive craniectomy in 91 (27%). Delayed decompressive craniectomy or craniotomy after initial conservative treatment (n=982) occurred in 107 (11%) patients. The percentage of patients who underwent acute surgery ranged from 5·6% to 51·5% (IQR 12·3-35·9) between centres, with a two-times higher probability of receiving acute surgery for an identical patient in one centre versus another centre at random (adjusted MOR for acute surgery 1·8; p

The effect of high arterial oxygen levels and supplemental oxygen administration on outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is debated, and data from large cohorts of TBI patients are limited. We investigated whether exposure to high blood oxygen levels and high oxygen supplementation is independently associated with outcomes in TBI patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and undergoing mechanical ventilation.This is a secondary analysis of two multicenter, prospective, observational, cohort studies performed in Europe and Australia. In TBI patients admitted to ICU, we describe the arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaOThe analysis included 1084 patients (11,577 measurements) in the CENTER-TBI cohort, of whom 55% had an unfavorable outcome, and 26% died at a 6-month follow-up. Median PaOIn two large prospective multicenter cohorts of critically ill patients with TBI, levels of PaO

Loss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month outcomes has been to use the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The purpose of the current study was to compare the performance of model-based single-imputation methods with that of the LOCF approach. We hypothesized that model-based methods would perform better as they potentially make better use of available outcome data. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study (n = 4509) included longitudinal outcome collection at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-injury; a total of 8185 Glasgow Outcome Scale extended (GOSe) observations were included in the database. We compared single imputation of 6-month outcomes using LOCF, a multiple imputation (MI) panel imputation, a mixed-effect model, a Gaussian process regression, and a multi-state model. Model performance was assessed via cross-validation on the subset of individuals with a valid GOSe value within 180 +/- 14 days post-injury (n = 1083). All models were fit on the entire available data after removing the 180 +/- 14 days post-injury observations from the respective test fold. The LOCF method showed lower accuracy (i.e., poorer agreement between imputed and observed values) than model-based methods of imputation, and showed a strong negative bias (i.e., it imputed lower than observed outcomes). Accuracy and bias for the model-based approaches were similar to one another, with the multi-state model having the best overall performance. All methods of imputation showed variation across different outcome categories, with better performance for more frequent outcomes. We conclude that model-based methods of single imputation have substantial performance advantages over LOCF, in addition to providing more complete outcome data.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the most fatal and debilitating conditions in the world. Current clinical management in severe TBI patients is mainly concerned with reducing secondary insults and optimizing the balance between substrate delivery and consumption. Over the past decades, multimodality monitoring has become more widely available, and clinical management protocols have been published that recommend potential interventions to correct pathophysiological derangements. Even while evidence from randomized clinical trials is still lacking for many of the recommended interventions, these protocols and algorithms can be useful to define a clear standard of therapy where novel interventions can be added or be compared to. Over the past decade, more attention has been paid to holistic management, in which hemodynamic, respiratory, inflammatory or coagulation disturbances are detected and treated accordingly. Considerable variability with regards to the trajectories of recovery exists. Even while most of the recovery occurs in the first months after TBI, substantial changes may still occur in a later phase. Neuroprognostication is challenging in these patients, where a risk of self-fulfilling prophecies is a matter of concern. The present article provides a comprehensive and practical review of the current best practice in clinical management and long-term outcomes of moderate to severe TBI in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

Strong evidence in support of guidelines for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is lacking. Large-scale observational studies may offer a complementary source of evidence to clinical trials to improve the care and outcome for patients with TBI. They are, however, challenging to execute. In this review, we aim to characterize opportunities and challenges of large-scale collaborative research in neurotrauma. We use the setup and conduct of Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) as an illustrative example. We highlight the importance of building a team and of developing a network for younger researchers, thus investing toward the future. We involved investigators early in the design phase and recognized their efforts in a group contributor list on all publications. We found, however, that translation to academic credits often failed, and we suggest that the current system of academic credits be critically appraised. We found substantial variability in consent procedures for participant enrollment within and between countries. Overall, obtaining approvals typically required 4-6 months, with outliers up to 18 months. Research costs varied considerably across Europe and should be defined by center. We substantially underestimated costs of data curation, and we suggest that 15-20% of the budget be reserved for this purpose. Streamlining analyses and accommodating external research proposals demanded a structured approach. We implemented a systematic inventory of study plans and found this effective in maintaining oversight and in promoting collaboration between research groups. Ensuring good use of the data was a prominent feature in the review of external proposals. Multiple interactions occurred with industrial partners, mainly related to biomarkers and neuroimaging, and resulted in various formal collaborations, substantially extending the scope of CENTER-TBI. Overall, CENTER-TBI has been productive, with over 250 international peer-reviewed publications. We have ensured mechanisms to maintain the infrastructure and continued analyses. We see potential for individual patient data meta-analyses in connection to other large-scale projects. Our collaboration with Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) has taught us that although standardized data collection and coding according to common data elements can facilitate such meta-analyses, further data harmonization is required for meaningful results. Both CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI have demonstrated the complexity of the conduct of large-scale collaborative studies that produce high-quality science and new insights.

Quality of life research 31(2), 451-471 (2022). doi:10.1007/s11136-021-02932-z, Published by Springer Science + Business Media B.V, Dordrecht [u.a.]

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has the highest incidence of all common neurological disorders, and poses a substantial public health burden. TBI is increasingly documented not only as an acute condition but also as a chronic disease with long-term consequences, including an increased risk of late-onset neurodegeneration. The first Lancet Neurology Commission on TBI, published in 2017, called for a concerted effort to tackle the global health problem posed by TBI. Since then, funding agencies have supported research both in high-income countries (HICs) and in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In November 2020, the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of WHO, passed resolution WHA73.10 for global actions on epilepsy and other neurological disorders, and WHO launched the Decade for Action on Road Safety plan in 2021. New knowledge has been generated by large observational studies, including those conducted under the umbrella of the International Traumatic Brain Injury Research (InTBIR) initiative, established as a collaboration of funding agencies in 2011. InTBIR has also provided a huge stimulus to collaborative research in TBI and has facilitated participation of global partners. The return on investment has been high, but many needs of patients with TBI remain unaddressed. This update to the 2017 Commission presents advances and discusses persisting and new challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research.

Background: Frailty is known to be associated with poorer outcomes in individuals admitted to hospital for medical conditions requiring intensive care. However, little evidence is available for the effect of frailty on patients’ outcomes after traumatic brain injury. Many frailty indices have been validated for clinical practice and show good performance to predict clinical outcomes. However, each is specific to a particular clinical context. We aimed to develop a frailty index to predict 6-month outcomes in patients after a traumatic brain injury. Methods: A cumulative deficit approach was used to create a novel frailty index based on 30 items dealing with disease states, current medications, and laboratory values derived from data available from CENTER-TBI, a prospective, longitudinal observational study of patients with traumatic brain injury presenting within 24 h of injury and admitted to a ward or an intensive care unit at 65 centres in Europe between Dec 19, 2014, and Dec 17, 2017. From the individual cumulative CENTER-TBI frailty index (range 0–30), we obtained a standardised value (range 0–1), with high scores indicating higher levels of frailty. The effect of frailty on 6-month outcome evaluated with the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) was assessed through a proportional odds logistic model adjusted for known outcome predictors. An unfavourable outcome was defined as death or severe disability (GOSE score ≤4). External validation was performed on data from TRACK-TBI, a prospective observational study co-designed with CENTER-TBI, which enrolled patients with traumatic brain injury at 18 level I trauma centres in the USA from Feb 26, 2014, to July 27, 2018. CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02210221; TRACK-TBI is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02119182. Findings: 2993 participants (median age was 51 years [IQR 30–67], 2058 [69%] were men) were included in this analysis. The overall median CENTER-TBI frailty index score was 0·07 (IQR 0·03–0·15), with a median score of 0·17 (0·08–0·27) in older adults (aged ≥65 years). The CENTER-TBI frailty index score was significantly associated with the probability of an increasingly unfavourable outcome (cumulative odds ratio [OR] 1·03, 95% CI 1·02–1·04; p

Background Several studies have reported an association between serum biomarker values and functional outcome following traumatic brain injury. We aimed to examine the incremental (added) prognostic value of serum biomarkers over demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics and over established prognostic models, such as IMPACT and CRASH, for prediction of functional outcome. Methods We used data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) core study. We included patients aged 14 years or older who had blood sampling within 24 h of injury, results from a CT scan, and outcome assessment according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) at 6 months. Amounts in serum of six biomarkers (S100 calcium-binding protein B, neuron-specific enolase, glial fibrillary acidic protein, ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 [UCH-L1], neurofilament protein-light, and total tau) were measured. The incremental prognostic value of these biomarkers was determined separately and in combination. The primary outcome was the GOSE 6 months after injury. Incremental prognostic value, using proportional odds and a dichotomised analysis, was assessed by delta C-statistic and delta R-2 between models with and without serum biomarkers, corrected for optimism with a bootstrapping procedure. Findings Serum biomarker values and 6-month GOSE were available for 2283 of 4509 patients. Higher biomarker levels were associated with worse outcome. Adding biomarkers improved the C-statistic by 0 center dot 014 (95% CI 0 center dot 009-0 center dot 020) and R-2 by 4 center dot 9% (3 center dot 6-6 center dot 5) for predicting GOSE compared with demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics. UCH-L1 had the greatest incremental prognostic value. Adding biomarkers to established prognostic models resulted in a relative increase in R-2 of 48-65% for IMPACT and 30-34% for CRASH prognostic models. Interpretation Serum biomarkers have incremental prognostic value for functional outcome after traumatic brain injury. Our findings support integration of biomarkers-particularly UCH-L1-in established prognostic models.

Strong evidence in support of guidelines for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is lacking. Large-scale observational studies may offer a complementary source of evidence to clinical trials to improve the care and outcome for patients with TBI. They are, however, challenging to execute. In this review, we aim to characterize opportunities and challenges of large-scale collaborative research in neurotrauma. We use the setup and conduct of Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) as an illustrative example. We highlight the importance of building a team and of developing a network for younger researchers, thus investing toward the future. We involved investigators early in the design phase and recognized their efforts in a group contributor list on all publications. We found, however, that translation to academic credits often failed, and we suggest that the current system of academic credits be critically appraised. We found substantial variability in consent procedures for participant enrollment within and between countries. Overall, obtaining approvals typically required 4-6 months, with outliers up to 18 months. Research costs varied considerably across Europe and should be defined by center. We substantially underestimated costs of data curation, and we suggest that 15-20% of the budget be reserved for this purpose. Streamlining analyses and accommodating external research proposals demanded a structured approach. We implemented a systematic inventory of study plans and found this effective in maintaining oversight and in promoting collaboration between research groups. Ensuring good use of the data was a prominent feature in the review of external proposals. Multiple interactions occurred with industrial partners, mainly related to biomarkers and neuroimaging, and resulted in various formal collaborations, substantially extending the scope of CENTER-TBI. Overall, CENTER-TBI has been productive, with over 250 international peer-reviewed publications. We have ensured mechanisms to maintain the infrastructure and continued analyses. We see potential for individual patient data meta-analyses in connection to other large-scale projects. Our collaboration with Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) has taught us that although standardized data collection and coding according to common data elements can facilitate such meta-analyses, further data harmonization is required for meaningful results. Both CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI have demonstrated the complexity of the conduct of large-scale collaborative studies that produce high-quality science and new insights.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are online summaries of health care research that are updated as new research becomes available. This new development in evidence synthesis is being trialled as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project. We will develop and sustain an international TBI knowledge community that maintains up-to-date, high quality LSRs of the current state of knowledge in the most important questions in TBI. Automatic search updates will be run three-monthly, and newly identified studies incorporated into the review. Review teams will seek to publish journal updates at regular intervals, with abridged updates available more frequently online. Future project stages include the integration of LSR and other study findings into "living" clinical practice guidance. It is hoped these efforts will go some way to bridging current temporal disconnects between evidence, guidelines, and practice in TBI.

Children and adolescents are at high risk of traumatic brain injuries (TBI). To identify those most at risk across Europe, a comprehensive epidemiological study on the burden of TBI is needed. Our aim was to estimate the burden of TBI in the pediatric and adolescent population of Europe by calculating rates of hospital-based incidence, death and years of life lost (YLL) due to TBI in 33 countries of Europe in 2014 (most recent available data). We conducted a cross-sectional observational, population-based study. All cases with TBI in the age range 0 to 19, registered in the causes of death databases or hospital discharge databases of 33 European countries were included. Crude and age-standardized rates of hospital discharges, deaths and YLLs due to TBI; and pooled estimates for all countries combined were calculated. TBI caused 2303 deaths (71% in boys), 154,282 YLLs (68% in boys) and 441,368 hospital discharges (61% in boys) in the population of 0–19 year-olds. We estimated pooled age-standardized rates of death (2.8, 95% CI: 2.4–3.3), YLLs (184.4, 95% CI: 151.6–217.2) and hospital discharges (344.6, 95% CI: 250.3–438.9) for the analyzed countries in 2014. The population of 15–19 year-olds had the highest rates of deaths and YLLs, and the population of 0–4 year-olds had the highest rate of hospital discharges. Detailed estimates of hospital discharge, death and YLL rates based on high-quality, standardized data may be used to develop health policies, aid decision-making and plan prevention.

Key Points Question Are different patterns of intracranial injury on head computed tomography associated with prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)? Findings In this cohort study, subarachnoid hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, and contusion often co-occurred and were associated with both incomplete recovery and more severe impairment out to 12 months after injury, while intraventricular and/or petechial hemorrhage co-occurred and were associated with more severe impairment up to 12 months after injury; epidural hematoma was associated with incomplete recovery at some points but not with more severe impairment. Some intracranial hemorrhage patterns were more strongly associated with outcomes than previously validated demographic and clinical variables. Meaning In this study, different pathological features on head computed tomography carried different implications for mild traumatic brain injury prognosis to 1 year., The longitudinal, observational study aims to identify pathological computed tomography features associated with adverse outcomes after mild traumatic brain injury., Importance A head computed tomography (CT) with positive results for acute intracranial hemorrhage is the gold-standard diagnostic biomarker for acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). In moderate to severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] scores 3-12), some CT features have been shown to be associated with outcomes. In mild TBI (mTBI; GCS scores 13-15), distribution and co-occurrence of pathological CT features and their prognostic importance are not well understood. Objective To identify pathological CT features associated with adverse outcomes after mTBI. Design, Setting, and Participants The longitudinal, observational Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) study enrolled patients with TBI, including those 17 years and older with GCS scores of 13 to 15 who presented to emergency departments at 18 US level 1 trauma centers between February 26, 2014, and August 8, 2018, and underwent head CT imaging within 24 hours of TBI. Evaluations of CT imaging used TBI Common Data Elements. Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE) scores were assessed at 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. External validation of results was performed via the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Data analyses were completed from February 2020 to February 2021. Exposures Acute nonpenetrating head trauma. Main Outcomes and Measures Frequency, co-occurrence, and clustering of CT features; incomplete recovery (GOSE scores

The Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) has become one of the most widely used outcome instruments to assess global disability and recovery after traumatic brain injury. Achieving consistency in the application of the assessment remains a challenge, particularly in multi-center studies involving many assessors. We present a manual for the GOSE interview that is designed to support both single- and multi-center studies and promote inter-rater agreement. Many patients fall clearly into a particular category; however, patients may have outcomes that are on the borderline between adjacent categories, and cases can present other challenges for assessment. The Manual includes the general principles of assessment, advice on administering each section of the GOSE interview, and guidance on "borderline" and "difficult" cases. Finally, we discuss the properties of the GOSE, including strengths and limitations, and outline recommendations for assessor training, accreditation, and monitoring.

Injury : international journal of the care of the injured 52(9), 2576-2587 (2021). doi:10.1016/j.injury.2021.04.033, Published by Elsevier Science, Amsterdam [u.a.]

Summary Background Large-scale studies are required to better characterise traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to identify the most effective treatment approaches for TBI. However, evidence is scarce and mostly originates from high-income countries. We aimed to describe the existing care for patients with TBI and the outcomes in China. Methods The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) China registry is a prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, observational study done in 56 neurosurgical centres across China. We collected data of patients who were admitted to hospital with a clinical diagnosis of TBI and an indication for CT. Patients who were discharged directly from the emergency room were excluded. The primary endpoint was survival on discharge. Prognostic analyses were applied to identify predictors of mortality. Variations in mortality were compared between centres and provinces within China. Mortality was compared with expected mortality, estimated using the CRASH basic model. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02210221. Findings From Dec 22, 2014, to Aug 1, 2017, 13 627 patients with TBI from 56 centres were enrolled in the registry. Data from 13 138 patients from 52 hospitals in 22 provinces of China were analysed. Most patients were male (9782 [74%]), with a median age of 48 years (IQR 33-61). The median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score was 13 (IQR 9-15), and the leading cause of injury was road-traffic incident (6548 [50%]). Overall, 637 (5%) patients died, including 552 (20%) patients with severe TBI. Age, GCS score, injury severity score, pupillary light reflex, CT findings (compressed basal cistern and midline shift >= 5 mm), presence of hypoxia, systemic hypotension, altitude higher than >500 m, and GDP per capita were significantly associated with survival in all patients with TBI. Variation in mortality existed between centres and regions. The expected 14-day mortality was 1116 (13%), but 544 (7%) deaths within 14 days were observed (observed to expected ratio 0 center dot 49 [95% CI 0 center dot 45-0 center dot 53]). I nterpretation The results show differences in mortality between centres and regions across China, which indicates potential for identifying best practices through comparative effectiveness research. The risk factors identified in prognostic analyses might contribute to developing benchmarks for assessing quality of care. Funding None. Copyright (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Outcome prognostication in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important but challenging due to heterogeneity of the disease. The aim of this systematic review is to present the current state-of-the-art on prognostic models for outcome after moderate and severe TBI and evidence on their validity. We searched for studies reporting on the development, validation or extension of prognostic models for functional outcome after TBI with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) = 14 years and evaluating a multi-variable prognostic model based on admission characteristics were included. Model discrimination was expressed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and model calibration with calibration slope and intercept. We included 58 studies describing 67 different prognostic models, comprising the development of 42 models, 149 external validations of 31 models, and 12 model extensions. The most common predictors were GCS (motor) score (n = 55), age (n = 54), and pupillary reactivity (n = 48). Model discrimination varied substantially between studies. The International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) models were developed on the largest cohorts (8509 and 10,008 patients, respectively) and were most often externally validated (n = 91), yielding AUCs ranging between 0.65-0.90 and 0.66-1.00, respectively. Model calibration was reported with a calibration intercept and slope for seven models in 53 validations, and was highly variable. In conclusion, the discriminatory validity of the IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models is supported across a range of settings. The variation in calibration, reflecting heterogeneity in reliability of predictions, motivates continuous validation and updating if clinical implementation is pursued.

Background: The burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a large public health and societal problem, but the characteristics of patients and their care pathways in Europe are poorly understood. We aimed to characterise patient case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes of TBI. Methods: CENTER-TBI is a Europe-based, observational cohort study, consisting of a core study and a registry. Inclusion criteria for the core study were a clinical diagnosis of TBI, presentation fewer than 24 h after injury, and an indication for CT. Patients were differentiated by care pathway and assigned to the emergency room (ER) stratum (patients who were discharged from an emergency room), admission stratum (patients who were admitted to a hospital ward), or intensive care unit (ICU) stratum (patients who were admitted to the ICU). Neuroimages and biospecimens were stored in repositories and outcome was assessed at 6 months after injury. We used the IMPACT core model for estimating the expected mortality and proportion with unfavourable Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) outcomes in patients with moderate or severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score ≤12). The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582). Findings: Data from 4509 patients from 18 countries, collected between Dec 9, 2014, and Dec 17, 2017, were analysed in the core study and from 22 782 patients in the registry. In the core study, 848 (19%) patients were in the ER stratum, 1523 (34%) in the admission stratum, and 2138 (47%) in the ICU stratum. In the ICU stratum, 720 (36%) patients had mild TBI (GCS score 13–15). Compared with the core cohort, the registry had a higher proportion of patients in the ER (9839 [43%]) and admission (8571 [38%]) strata, with more than 95% of patients classified as having mild TBI. Patients in the core study were older than those in previous studies (median age 50 years [IQR 30–66], 1254 [28%] aged >65 years), 462 (11%) had serious comorbidities, 772 (18%) were taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication, and alcohol was contributory in 1054 (25%) TBIs. MRI and blood biomarker measurement enhanced characterisation of injury severity and type. Substantial inter-country differences existed in care pathways and practice. Incomplete recovery at 6 months (GOSE

Traumatic brain injury is a complex and diverse medical condition with a high frequency of intracranial abnormalities. These can typically be visualized on a computed tomography (CT) scan, which provides important information for further patient management, such as the need for operative intervention. In order to quantify the extent of acute intracranial lesions and associated secondary injuries, such as midline shift and cisternal compression, visual assessment of CT images has limitations, including observer variability and lack of quantitative interpretation. Automated image analysis can quantify the extent of intracranial abnormalities and provide added value in routine clinical practice. In this article, we present icobrain, a fully automated method that reliably computes acute intracranial lesions volume based on deep learning, cistern volume, and midline shift on the noncontrast CT image of a patient. The accuracy of our method is evaluated on a subset of the multi-center data set from the CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury) study for which expert annotations were used as a reference. Median volume differences between expert assessments and icobrain are 0.07 mL for acute intracranial lesions and -0.01 mL for cistern segmentation. Correlation between expert assessments and icobrain is 0.91 for volume of acute intracranial lesions and 0.94 for volume of the cisterns. For midline shift computations, median error is -0.22 mm, with a correlation of 0.93 with expert assessments. ispartof: JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA vol:36 issue:11 pages:1794-1803 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Funder: One Mind for Research, Funder: bill and melinda gates foundation (us), Funder: University of Manitoba VPRI Research investment fund, Funder: Winniped Health Sciences Centre HSC Foundation, Funder: ZNS - Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (DE), Funder: Integra LifeSciences (US), Funder: Rudy Falk Professorship, Statistical models for outcome prediction are central to traumatic brain injury research and critical to baseline risk adjustment. Glasgow coma score (GCS) and pupil reactivity are crucial covariates in all such models but may be measured at multiple time points between the time of injury and hospital and are subject to a variable degree of unreliability and/or missingness. Imputation of missing data may be undertaken using full multiple imputation or by simple substitution of measurements from other time points. However, it is unknown which strategy is best or which time points are more predictive. We evaluated the pseudo-R2 of logistic regression models (dichotomous survival) and proportional odds models (Glasgow Outcome Score—extended) using different imputation strategies on the The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study dataset. Substitution strategies were easy to implement, achieved low levels of missingness (<< 10%) and could outperform multiple imputation without the need for computationally costly calculations and pooling multiple final models. While model performance was sensitive to imputation strategy, this effect was small in absolute terms and clinical relevance. A strategy of using the emergency department discharge assessments and working back in time when these were missing generally performed well. Full multiple imputation had the advantage of preserving time-dependence in the models: the pre-hospital assessments were found to be relatively unreliable predictors of survival or outcome. The predictive performance of later assessments was model-dependent. In conclusion, simple substitution strategies for imputing baseline GCS and pupil response can perform well and may be a simple alternative to full multiple imputation in many cases.

Background: One out of seven individuals who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) develops a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is often associated with neurocognitive impairment. The present study explores the impact of neurocognitive functioning after mild, moderate, and severe TBI on the course of PTSD symptoms. Methods: The data of 671 adults admitted to hospital for a TBI was drawn from the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research (CENTER-TBI) study. After six- and 12-months post-injury, participants completed the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5), from which change scores were calculated. At six months, participants also completed a neurocognitive assessment including the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, the Trail Making Test, and the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). Linear regressions were performed to identify associations between cognitive functioning and PCL-5 change scores. Results: Overall, mean PCL-5 change scores showed no clear change (−0.20 ± 9.88), but 87 improved and 80 deteriorated by a change score of 10 or more. CANTAB Rapid Visual Information Processing scores were significantly associated with PCL-5 change scores. Conclusions: Strong sustained attention was associated with improvement in PTSD symptoms. Assessing cognitive performance may help identify individuals at risk of developing (persisting) PTSD post-TBI and offer opportunities for informing treatment strategies.

Assessing outcomes in multinational studies on traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses major challenges and requires relevant instruments in languages other than English. Of the 19 outcome instruments selected for use in the observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study, 17 measures lacked translations in at least one target language. To fill this gap, we aimed to develop well-translated linguistically and psychometrically validated instruments. We performed translations and linguistic validations of patient-reported measures (PROMs), clinician-reported (ClinRO), and performance-based (PerfO) outcome instruments, using forward and backward translations, reconciliations, cognitive debriefings with up to 10 participants, iterative revisions, and international harmonization with input from over 150 international collaborators. In total, 237 translations and 211 linguistic validations were carried out in up to 20 languages. Translations were evaluated at the linguistic and cultural level by coding changes when the original versions are compared with subsequent translation steps, using the output of cognitive debriefings, and using comprehension rates. The average comprehension rate per instrument varied from 88% to 98%, indicating a good quality of the translations. These outcome instruments provide a solid basis for future TBI research and clinical practice and allow the aggregation and analysis of data across different countries and languages.

Background Due to the lack of high-quality evidence which has hindered the development of evidence-based guidelines, there is a need to provide general guidance on cranioplasty (CP) following traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as identify areas of ongoing uncertainty via a consensus-based approach. Methods The international consensus meeting on post-traumatic CP was held during the International Conference on Recent Advances in Neurotraumatology (ICRAN), in Naples, Italy, in June 2018. This meeting was endorsed by the Neurotrauma Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma, and several other neurotrauma organizations. Discussions and voting were organized around 5 pre-specified themes: (1) indications and technique, (2) materials, (3) timing, (4) hydrocephalus, and (5) paediatric CP. Results The participants discussed published evidence on each topic and proposed consensus statements, which were subject to ratification using anonymous real-time voting. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% for inclusion in the final recommendations. Conclusions This document is the first set of practical consensus-based clinical recommendations on post-traumatic CP, focusing on timing, materials, complications, and surgical procedures. Future research directions are also presented.

Background: Fluid therapy is a ubiquitous part of management of critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and may impact on outcome. Our aim was to quantify variability in current fluid therapy in patients with TBI admitted at European and Australian Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and to study the association between fluid therapy and outcome after TBI. Methods: We analyzed data from patients admitted to the ICU with TBI and aged 16 and older included in the observational European CENTER-TBI and Australian OzENTER-TBI studies. The association of net daily fluid balance and -input with outcome (ICU mortality and functional outcome at 6 months) was analyzed at patient level with mixed effects logistic and ordinal regression with a random intercept for centre and adjustment for patient characteristics, and at centre level with centre as instrumental variable. Findings: In total, 2125 patients were included (1005 patients with isolated TBI). Mean daily fluid input ranged from 1·5 to 4·2L per centre. More positive daily mean fluid balance and fluid input were associated with worse outcome in patient-level analyses (fluid balance: ORs per 0·1L increase 1·10 [95%CI:1·07–1·13] and 1·03 [95%CI:1·02–1·05] for ICU mortality and functional outcome respectively; fluid input: ORs 1·05 [95%CI:1·03–1·06] and 1·03 [95%CI:1·02–1·04]). Centre-level analysis showed similar associations for fluid balance (ORs 1·15 [95%CI:1·02-1·29]; and 1·07 [95%CI:1·01-1·12], but not for fluid input (ORs: 0·95 [95%CI: 0·90-1·00]; and 1·01 [95%CI:0·99–1·03]). Interpretation: In critically ill patients with TBI, there is significant variability in fluid management with more positive fluid balances being associated with worse outcomes. Further research is needed to establish whether mitigation of positive fluid balance by less liberal fluid administration contributes to improved outcome. Funding: This research was funded by the European Commission 7th Framework program (602150) and the Australian Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC 1074181). Declaration of Interests: DJC is an Australian NHMRC Practitioner Fellow and reports grants from the NHMRC and consulting fees to Monash University from PresSura Neuro. AIM declares consulting fees from PresSura Neuro, Integra Life Sciences, and NeuroTrauma Sciences. DKM reports grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees from Neurotrauma Sciences, Lantmaanen AB, Pressura, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. ES reports personal fees from Springer, during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: In each recruiting site ethical approval was given.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) may lead to impairments in various outcome domains. Since most instruments assessing these are only available in a limited number of languages, psychometrically validated translations are important for research and clinical practice. Thus, our aim was to investigate the psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) applied in the CENTER-TBI study. The study sample comprised individuals who filled in the six-months assessments (GAD-7, PHQ-9, PCL-5, RPQ, QOLIBRI/-OS, SF-36v2/-12v2). Classical psychometric characteristics were investigated and compared with those of the original English versions. The reliability was satisfactory to excellent, the instruments were comparable to each other and to the original versions. Validity analyses demonstrated medium to high correlations with well-established measures. The original factor structure was replicated by all the translations, except for the RPQ, SF-36v2/-12v2 and some language samples for the PCL-5, most probably due to the factor structure of the original instruments. The translation of one to two items of the PHQ-9, RPQ, PCL-5, and QOLIBRI in three languages could be improved in the future to enhance scoring and application at the individual level. Researchers and clinicians now have access to reliable and valid instruments to improve outcome assessment after TBI in national and international health care.