Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33406786›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

Assessing the Severity of Traumatic Brain Injury-Time for a Change?

Olli Tenovuo, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, Lee E Goldstein, David J Sharp, Joukje van der Naalt, Nathan D Zasler

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06927063 (Long-term Recovery and Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis Disruption After Traumatic Brain Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 81 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT06927063 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Long-term Recovery and Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis Disruption After Traumatic Brain Injury

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorTurku University HospitalRan2025 to 2028Enrolled160ConditionsTraumatic Brain InjuryArmsblood-based protein biomarker assessments, blood-based metabolomic/lipidomic biomarker assessments, Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (brain), Structural magnetic resonance imaging (brain), PET imaging (brain)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Revisiting the critical roles of reactive microglia in traumatic brain injury.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Olli TenovuoClinical Neurosciences, University of Turku and Turku Brain Injury Center, Neurocenter, Turku University Hospital, 20521 Turku, Finland.
Ramon Diaz-ArrastiaPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Lee E GoldsteinAlzheimer's Disease Research Center, College of Engineering, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
David J SharpDepartment of Brain Sciences, National Institute of Health Professor & Consultant Neurologist, UK Dementia Research Institute, Imperial College London and Care Research & Technology Centre, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Joukje van der NaaltDepartment of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Nathan D ZaslerConcussion Care Centre of Virginia and Tree of Life, Richmond, VA 23233, USA.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been described to be man's most complex disease, in man's most complex organ. Despite this vast complexity, variability, and individuality, we still classify the severity of TBI based on non-specific, often unreliable, and pathophysiologically poorly understood measures. Current classifications are primarily based on clinical evaluations, which are non-specific and poorly predictive of long-term disability. Brain imaging results have also been used, yet there are multiple ways of doing brain imaging, at different timepoints in this very dynamic injury. Severity itself is a vague concept. All prediction models based on combining variables that can be assessed during the acute phase have reached only modest predictive values for later outcome. Yet, these early labels of severity often determine how the patient is treated by the healthcare system at large. This opinion paper examines the problems and provides caveats regarding the use of current severity labels and the many practical and scientific issues that arise from doing so. The objective of this paper is to show the causes and consequences of current practice and propose a new approach based on risk classification. A new approach based on multimodal quantifiable data (including imaging and biomarkers) and risk-labels would be of benefit both for the patients and for TBI clinical research and should be a priority for international efforts in the field.

Indexed as

assessmentoutcomeseveritytraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID33406786
PMCPMC7795933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.