Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25741315›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2015

Systemic, local, and imaging biomarkers of brain injury: more needed, and better use of those already established?

Keri L H Carpenter, Marek Czosnyka, Ibrahim Jalloh, Virginia F J Newcombe, Adel Helmy, Richard J Shannon, Karol P Budohoski, Angelos G Kolias, Peter J Kirkpatrick, Thomas Adrian Carpenter and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Biomarkers of brain injury following an American football game: A pilot study.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology · 2016
    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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Keri L H CarpenterDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK ; Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Marek CzosnykaDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Ibrahim JallohDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Virginia F J NewcombeWolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK ; Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Adel HelmyDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Richard J ShannonDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Karol P BudohoskiDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Angelos G KoliasDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Peter J KirkpatrickDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Thomas Adrian CarpenterWolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
David K MenonWolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK ; Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
Peter J HutchinsonDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK ; Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-R3-12-013Medical Research Council G0001354Medical Research Council G0600986Medical Research Council G0802251Medical Research Council G1000183Medical Research Council G1002277Medical Research Council G9439390
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much progress has been made over the past two decades in the treatment of severe acute brain injury, including traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage, resulting in a higher proportion of patients surviving with better outcomes. This has arisen from a combination of factors. These include improvements in procedures at the scene (pre-hospital) and in the hospital emergency department, advances in neuromonitoring in the intensive care unit, both continuously at the bedside and intermittently in scans, evolution and refinement of protocol-driven therapy for better management of patients, and advances in surgical procedures and rehabilitation. Nevertheless, many patients still experience varying degrees of long-term disabilities post-injury with consequent demands on carers and resources, and there is room for improvement. Biomarkers are a key aspect of neuromonitoring. A broad definition of a biomarker is any observable feature that can be used to inform on the state of the patient, e.g., a molecular species, a feature on a scan, or a monitoring characteristic, e.g., cerebrovascular pressure reactivity index. Biomarkers are usually quantitative measures, which can be utilized in diagnosis and monitoring of response to treatment. They are thus crucial to the development of therapies and may be utilized as surrogate endpoints in Phase II clinical trials. To date, there is no specific drug treatment for acute brain injury, and many seemingly promising agents emerging from pre-clinical animal models have failed in clinical trials. Large Phase III studies of clinical outcomes are costly, consuming time and resources. It is therefore important that adequate Phase II clinical studies with informative surrogate endpoints are performed employing appropriate biomarkers. In this article, we review some of the available systemic, local, and imaging biomarkers and technologies relevant in acute brain injury patients, and highlight gaps in the current state of knowledge.

Indexed as

acute brain injury (human)biomarkersblood–brain barriercell deathcerebral energy metabolismimaginginflammationmultimodality monitoring

Identifiers

PMID25741315
PMCPMC4332345
OpenAlexW2000528825

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.