Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25898072›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2015

External Validation and Recalibration of Risk Prediction Models for Acute Traumatic Brain Injury among Critically Ill Adult Patients in the United Kingdom.

David A Harrison, Kathryn A Griggs, Gita Prabhu, Manuel Gomes, Fiona E Lecky, Peter J A Hutchinson, David K Menon, Kathryn M Rowan, Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN) Study Investigators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

David A Harrison1 Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre , Napier House, London, United Kingdom .
Kathryn A Griggs1 Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre , Napier House, London, United Kingdom .
Gita Prabhu1 Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre , Napier House, London, United Kingdom .
Manuel Gomes2 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, United Kingdom .
Fiona E Lecky3 School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield , Regent Court, Sheffield, United Kingdom .
Peter J A Hutchinson4 Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, United Kingdom .
David K Menon5 Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, United Kingdom .
Kathryn M Rowan1 Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre , Napier House, London, United Kingdom .
Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN) Study Investigators

Funding

Department of Health 07/37/29Department of Health NIHR-RP-R3-12-013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study validates risk prediction models for acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) in critical care units in the United Kingdom and recalibrates the models to this population. The Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN) Study was a prospective, observational cohort study in 67 adult critical care units. Adult patients admitted to critical care following acute TBI with a last pre-sedation Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 15 were recruited. The primary outcomes were mortality and unfavorable outcome (death or severe disability, assessed using the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale) at six months following TBI. Of 3626 critical care unit admissions, 2975 were analyzed. Following imputation of missing outcomes, mortality at six months was 25.7% and unfavorable outcome 57.4%. Ten risk prediction models were validated from Hukkelhoven and colleagues, the Medical Research Council (MRC) Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury (CRASH) Trial Collaborators, and the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) group. The model with the best discrimination was the IMPACT "Lab" model (C index, 0.779 for mortality and 0.713 for unfavorable outcome). This model was well calibrated for mortality at six months but substantially under-predicted the risk of unfavorable outcome. Recalibration of the models resulted in small improvements in discrimination and excellent calibration for all models. The risk prediction models demonstrated sufficient statistical performance to support their use in research and audit but fell below the level required to guide individual patient decision-making. The published models for unfavorable outcome at six months had poor calibration in the UK critical care setting and the models recalibrated to this setting should be used in future research.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessAdrenal Cortex HormonesAdultBrain InjuriesCalibrationCohort StudiesFemaleGlasgow Coma ScaleGlasgow Outcome ScaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, NeurologicalPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisProspective StudiesAdrenal Cortex Hormonesoutcome measuresprospective studytraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID25898072
PMCPMC4589267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.