ArticleBMJ open2020
Challenges in the acute identification of mild traumatic brain injuries: results from an emergency department surveillance study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gait Impairment in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Eye movements and ocular biomarkers in mild traumatic brain injury: from oculomotor pathophysiology to diagnosis and prognosis.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- A novel spatiotemporal decomposition and identification of sparse equations for human brain deformation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring Senior Emergency Physicians' Perspectives on the Inclusion of Clinical Biomarkers in Clinical Decision Rules for CT Head Use in Patients With Suspected Traumatic Brain Injury.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of mTBI in an ER Setting Using Eye-Tracking and Virtual Reality Technology: An Exploratory Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- AI-assisted decision-making in mild traumatic brain injury.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Validation Study of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Case-Identifying Algorithms in French Emergency Departments: High Performance in Children but Limited in Adults.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Marital Stability During the Year After Traumatic Brain Injury in an Ecuadorian Sample: A Repeated-Measures Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Translational Connectomics: overview of machine learning in macroscale Connectomics for clinical insights.BMC neurology · 2024Review
- Who is seeking information about traumatic brain injury? Characterizing online course participants.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Validation of a Rule-Based ICD-10-CM Algorithm to Detect Fall Injuries in Medicare Data.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024Article
- Advanced Tuneable Micronanoplatforms for Sensitive and Selective Multiplexed Spectroscopic Sensing via Electro-Hydrodynamic Surface Molecular Lithography.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Lysophospholipids Are Associated With Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of neurotrauma · 2024Article
- Utility of Acute and Subacute Blood Biomarkers to Assist Diagnosis in CT-Negative Isolated Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Neurology · 2023Article
- Maximizing the Clinical Value of Blood-Based Biomarkers for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Diffusion in the corpus callosum predicts persistence of clinical symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury, a multi-scanner study.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Advocacy for Change: An Osteopathic Review of Traumatic Brain Injury Among Combat Veterans.Cureus · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish the proportion of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) diagnosis among people presenting to an emergency department (ED), to determine the accuracy of recorded ED diagnoses. We also aimed to describe challenges in mTBI case identification and its acute hospital management. DESIGN AND
settingA retrospective chart review of all ED attendances to a major trauma hospital, over a 9-month period (June 2015-February 2016).
participantsAdults aged 18-65 years consecutively presenting to an ED. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of mTBI diagnosis among ED attendances (ie, confirmed mTBI based on the WHO criteria or indeterminate mTBI based on secondary criteria), and proportion of accurately recorded mTBI diagnosis by ED clinicians (ie, 'mTBI', 'concussion').
resultsOf 30 479 ED attendances, 351 (1.15%) confirmed mTBI diagnosis and 180 (0.6%) indeterminate diagnosis were identified. Only 81 (23.1%) individuals with a confirmed mTBI had a 'mTBI diagnosis' clearly recorded in the medical notes. Of the allocated discharge diagnosis codes to the two identified cohorts, 89.8% were not indicative of mTBI. Intracranial injuries were found in 31 (8.5%) confirmed cases. Glasgow Coma Scale scores were consistently assessed in the ED but identified only 117 (33.3%) confirmed mTBI cases. Post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) testing was able to confirm acute cognitive impairment in 113 (62.1%) of those who were tested (182, 51.3%).
conclusionsmTBI is a common, but an under-recognised cause for ED attendance. Despite challenges, the use of an operational definition such as the WHO diagnostic criteria can improve accuracy in mTBI identification. Acute management may be enhanced by rapid assessment of PTA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.