ArticleCritical care (London, England)2014
Monitoring prognosis in severe traumatic brain injury.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Prognostic properties of the association between the S-100B protein levels and the mean cerebral blood flow velocity in patients diagnosed with severe traumatic brain injury.Biomedical reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Usability of the Level of the S100B Protein, the Gosling Pulsatility Index, and the Jugular Venous Oxygen Saturation for the Prediction of Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.BioMed research international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The choice of disease-specific versus generic scales is common to many fields of medicine. In the area of traumatic brain injury, evidence is coming forward that disease-specific prognostic models and disease-specific scoring systems are preferable in the intensive care setting. In monitoring prognosis, the use of a calibration belt in validation studies potentially provides accurate and intuitively attractive insight into performance. This approach deserves further empirical evaluation of its added value as well as its limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.