Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17105661›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2006

Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury.

Pablo Perel, Phil Edwards, Reinhard Wentz, Ian Roberts

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

115 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Facilitators and Barriers of the Use of Prognostic Models for Clinical Decision Making in Acute Neurologic Care: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Environmental enrichment for stroke and other non-progressive brain injury.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Systematic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2012
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Pablo PerelNutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, Epidemiology and Population Health Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. pablo.perel@lshtm.ac.uk
Phil Edwards
Reinhard Wentz
Ian Roberts

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability world-wide. The ability to accurately predict patient outcome after TBI has an important role in clinical practice and research. Prognostic models are statistical models that combine two or more items of patient data to predict clinical outcome. They may improve predictions in TBI patients. Multiple prognostic models for TBI have accumulated for decades but none of them is widely used in clinical practice. The objective of this systematic review is to critically assess existing prognostic models for TBI

methodsStudies that combine at least two variables to predict any outcome in patients with TBI were searched in PUBMED and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently examined titles, abstracts and assessed whether each met the pre-defined inclusion criteria.

resultsA total of 53 reports including 102 models were identified. Almost half (47%) were derived from adult patients. Three quarters of the models included less than 500 patients. Most of the models (93%) were from high income countries populations. Logistic regression was the most common analytical strategy to derived models (47%). In relation to the quality of the derivation models (n:66), only 15% reported less than 10% pf loss to follow-up, 68% did not justify the rationale to include the predictors, 11% conducted an external validation and only 19% of the logistic models presented the results in a clinically user-friendly way

conclusionPrognostic models are frequently published but they are developed from small samples of patients, their methodological quality is poor and they are rarely validated on external populations. Furthermore, they are not clinically practical as they are not presented to physicians in a user-friendly way. Finally because only a few are developed using populations from low and middle income countries, where most of trauma occurs, the generalizability to these setting is limited.

Indexed as

Glasgow Outcome ScaleModels, StatisticalBrain InjuriesHumansPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID17105661
PMCPMC1657003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.