Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27072952›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2016

Clinical Outcomes after Traumatic Brain Injury.

Danielle K Sandsmark

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Identifying TBI Physiological States by Clustering Multivariate Clinical Time-Series Data.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Role of Thalamus in Recovery of Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of neurosciences in rural practice · 2016
    Review
  20. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Danielle K SandsmarkDivision of Neurocritical Care, Departments of Neurology, Anesthesiology and Critical Care, and Neurosurgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Danielle.Sandsmark@uphs.upenn.edu.
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability that often affects young people. After injury, the degree of recovery can be highly variable, with some people regaining near complete function while others remain severely disabled. Understanding what factors influence recovery is important for counseling patients and families in the acute period after injury and can help guide therapeutic decisions in the acute period following injury. In this review, prognostic algorithms useful for clinicians are discussed. Tools for grading patient outcomes, their role in clinical care and research studies, and their limitations are reviewed. Ongoing work focusing on the development of biomarkers to track TBI recovery and the refinement of clinical outcome metrics is summarized.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBrain Injuries, TraumaticHumansPrognosisBiomarkersAssessmentBiomarkersOutcomePrognosisTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID27072952
OpenAlexW2336957283

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.