ArticlePloS one2020
Development of clinical decision rules for traumatic intracranial injuries in patients with mild traumatic brain injury in a developing country.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- An external validation of clinical-based score to predict traumatic intracranial hemorrhage on computed tomography scan and surgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury patients.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Traumatic brain injury: Mechanisms, manifestations, and visual sequelae.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe majority of clinical decision rules for prediction of intracranial injury in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) were developed from high-income countries. The application of these rules in low or middle-income countries, where the primary mechanism of injury was traffic accidents, is questionable.
methodsWe developed two practical decision rules from a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort of 1,164 patients with mild TBI who visited the emergency departments from 2013 to 2016. The clinical endpoints were the presence of any intracranial injury on CT scans and the requirement of neurosurgical interventions within seven days of onset.
resultsThirteen predictors were included in both models, which were age ≥60 years, dangerous mechanism of injury, diffuse headache, vomiting >2 episodes, loss of consciousness, posttraumatic amnesia, posttraumatic seizure, history of anticoagulant use, presence of neurological deficits, significant wound at the scalp, signs of skull base fracture, palpable stepping at the skull, and GCS <15 at 2 hours. For the model-based score, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was 0.85 (95%CI 0.82, 0.87) for positive CT results and 0.87 (95%CI 0.83, 0.91) for requirement of neurosurgical intervention. For the clinical-based score, the AuROC for positive CT results and requirement of neurosurgical intervention was 0.82 (95%CI 0.79, 0.85) and 0.84 (95%CI 0.80, 0.88), respectively.
conclusionsThe models delivered good calibration and excellent discrimination both in the development and internal validation cohort. These rules can be used as assisting tools in risk stratification of patients with mild TBI to be sent for CT scans or admitted for clinical observation.
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.