Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23924958›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2013

Interventions provided in the acute phase for mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

Jocelyn Gravel, Antonio D'Angelo, Benoit Carrière, Louis Crevier, Miriam H Beauchamp, Jean-Marc Chauny, Maggy Wassef, Nils Chaillet

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 'We are in this together' voices of speech-language pathologists working in South African healthcare contexts during level 4 and level 5 lockdown of COVID-19.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Adolescents with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Get SMART: An Analysis of a Novel Web-Based Intervention.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Cervical Spine Involvement in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Review.Journal of sports medicine (Hindawi Publishing Corporation) · 2016
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

8 authors.

Jocelyn GravelDépartement de Pédiatrie, CHU Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. graveljocelyn@hotmail.com
Antonio D'Angelo
Benoit Carrière
Louis Crevier
Miriam H Beauchamp
Jean-Marc Chauny
Maggy Wassef
Nils Chaillet

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost patients who sustain mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have persistent symptoms at 1 week and 1 month after injury. This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of interventions initiated in acute settings for patients who experience mTBI.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of all randomized clinical trials evaluating any intervention initiated in an acute setting for patients experiencing acute mTBI. All possible outcomes were included. The primary sources of identification were MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials, from 1980 to August 2012. Hand searching of proceedings from five meetings related to mTBI was also performed. Study selection was conducted by two co-authors, and data abstraction was completed by a research assistant specialized in conducting systematic reviews. Study quality was evaluated using Cochrane's Risk of Bias assessment tool.

resultsFrom a potential 15,156 studies, 1,268 abstracts were evaluated and 120 articles were read completely. Of these, 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. One study evaluated a pharmacological intervention, two evaluated activity restriction, one evaluated head computed tomography scan versus admission, four evaluated information interventions, and seven evaluated different follow-up interventions. Use of different outcome measures limited the possibilities for analysis. However, a meta-analysis of three studies evaluating various follow-up strategies versus routine follow-up or no follow-up failed to show any effect on three outcomes at 6 to 12 months post-trauma. In addition, a meta-analysis of two studies found no effect of an information intervention on headache at 3 months post-injury.

conclusionsThere is a paucity of well-designed clinical studies for patients who sustain mTBI. The large variability in outcomes measured in studies limits comparison between them.

Indexed as

HospitalizationBrain InjuriesHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID23924958
PMCPMC3750385

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.