Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32000562›Full record

Observational studyJournal of neurotrauma2020

Common Data Elements: Critical Assessment of Harmonization between Current Multi-Center Traumatic Brain Injury Studies.

Sacha Meeuws, John K Yue, Jilske A Huijben, Nandesh Nair, Hester F Lingsma, Michael J Bell, Geoffrey T Manley, Andrew I R Maas

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of neurotrauma, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development and first results of a national databank on care and treatment outcome after traumatic brain injury.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Sacha MeeuwsDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
John K YueDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jilske A HuijbenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Nandesh NairDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
Hester F LingsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Michael J BellDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Geoffrey T ManleyDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Andrew I R MaasDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
Antwerp University Hospital · BEErasmus MC · NLUniversity of California, San Francisco · USChildren's National · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standardization and harmonization of data collection in studies on traumatic brain injury (TBI) is of paramount importance for meta-analyses across studies. Nearly 10 years ago, the first set of Common Data Elements for TBI (TBI-CDEs v1) were introduced to achieve these goals. The TBI-CDEs version 2 were developed in 2012 to broaden the approach to all ages, injury severity, and phases of recovery. We aimed to quantify the degree of harmonization of these data elements in three large, prospective multi-center studies conducted within the International Initiative for TBI Research (InTBIR). Data variables of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI; adult and pediatric patients in Europe and Israel), Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI; adult and pediatric patients in the U.S.), and Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI (ADAPT; international study on severe pediatric TBI) studies were indexed and matched to the second version of the TBI CDEs. We focused on the CDE sub-categories of "Acute Hospitalized" (AH) and "Moderate/Severe TBI: Rehabilitation (Rehab). All "Core" and "Basic" level CDEs were considered. Closely related elements were reduced to one variable to prevent over-representation. Categorical elements and text elements for the same variable were likewise merged to one element for analysis. Following reduction and merging of related elements, 21 Core, 46 Basic AH, and 50 Basic Rehab elements were deemed harmonizable across studies. Gaps in global applicability were identified for four of the TBI CDEs and many of the outcome instruments, which are only available in the English language. Agreements of Core and Basic study CDEs for the AH domain with the TBI CDEs were respectively 81% and 91% for CENTER-TBI, 76% and 93% for TRACK-TBI, and 85% in ADAPT for both domains. For the domain Rehab, agreement with Basic TBI CDEs was 84% for CENTER-TBI, 94% for TRACK-TBI, and 71% for ADAPT. Non-harmonization was largely caused by absence of the elements in the studies. For elements present, the compatibility of coding with TBI CDEs was 90-99%. The degree of harmonization was greatest between CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI with 81-87% overlap within the TBI CDE sub-categories. The high degree of harmonization of study variables among these studies demonstrates the importance and utility of common data elements in TBI research. It also confirms the potential for future meta-analyses across these large studies, especially for CENTER TBI and TRACK TBI. The global applicability of the TBI CDEs needs to be improved for them to become a global standard for TBI research. CENTER-TBI, TRACK-TBI, and ADAPT, along with other studies within the InTBIR Initiative, provide a platform to inform further refinement and internationalization for the next version of the TBI CDEs.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalBrain Injuries, TraumaticCommon Data ElementsHumansProspective Studiesclinical trialCommon Data Elementsdata standardsInTBIRstandardizationtraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID32000562
PMCPMC7249452
OpenAlexW3004207215

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.