Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30860434›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2019

Prognosis of Six-Month Glasgow Outcome Scale in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Using Hospital Admission Characteristics, Injury Severity Characteristics, and Physiological Monitoring during the First Day Post-Injury.

M Laura Rubin, Jose-Miguel Yamal, Wenyaw Chan, Claudia S Robertson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Initial CT-based radiomics nomogram for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury: a multicenter development and validation study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

M Laura Rubin1Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jose-Miguel Yamal2Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, Houston, Texas.
Wenyaw Chan2Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, Houston, Texas.
Claudia S Robertson3Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Vascular Mechanisms of Secondary Injury After Traumatic Brain InjuryP01NS038660 · NINDS · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI ROBERTSON, CLAUDIA S · 1999 to 2012
$12.1M
Training Program in Biostatistics at UTHSCH-SPHT32GM074902 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI DESANTIS, STACIA · 2006 to 2018
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM074902NINDS NIH HHS P01 NS038660
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gold standard prognostic models for long-term outcome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) use admission characteristics and are considered useful in some areas but not for clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to build prognostic models for 6-month Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) in patients with severe TBI, combining baseline characteristics with physiological, treatment, and injury severity data collected during the first 24 h after injury. We used a training dataset of 472 TBI subjects and several data mining algorithms to predict the long-term neurological outcome. Performance of these algorithms was assessed in an independent (test) sample of 158 subjects. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) led to the highest prediction accuracy (area under the receiving operating characteristic curve = 0.86) in the test set. The most important post-baseline predictor of GOS was the best motor Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) recorded in the first day post-injury. The LASSO model containing the best motor GCS and baseline variables as predictors outperformed a model with baseline data only. TBI patient physiology of the first day-post-injury did not have a major contribution to patient prognosis six months after injury. In conclusion, 6-month GOS in patients with TBI can be predicted with good accuracy by the end of the first day post-injury, using hospital admission data and information on the best motor GCS achieved during those first 24 h post-injury. Passed the first day after injury, important physiological predictors could emerge from landmark analyses, leading to prediction models of higher accuracy than the one proposed in the current research.

Indexed as

Glasgow Outcome ScaleModels, TheoreticalBrain Injuries, TraumaticHumansInjury Severity ScoreMonitoring, PhysiologicPatient AdmissionPrognosisfirst day post-injuryGlasgow Outcome Scaleprognostic modelsecondary injurytraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID30860434
PMCPMC6661910

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.