Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35022177›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Development and validation of a prehospital-stage prediction tool for traumatic brain injury: a multicentre retrospective cohort study in Korea.

Yeongho Choi, Jeong Ho Park, Ki Jeong Hong, Young Sun Ro, Kyoung Jun Song, Sang Do Shin

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Use of artificial intelligence to support prehospital traumatic injury care: A scoping review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yeongho ChoiLaboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, South Korea.
Jeong Ho ParkLaboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, South Korea timthe@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6330-9820
Ki Jeong HongLaboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, South Korea.
Young Sun RoLaboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3634-9573
Kyoung Jun SongLaboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, South Korea.
Sang Do ShinLaboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, South Korea.
Seoul National University Hospital · KRSeoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPredicting diagnosis and prognosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI) at the prehospital stage is challenging; however, using comprehensive prehospital information and machine learning may improve the performance of the predictive model. We developed and tested predictive models for TBI that use machine learning algorithms using information that can be obtained in the prehospital stage.

designThis was a multicentre retrospective study. SETTING AND

participantsThis study was conducted at three tertiary academic emergency departments (EDs) located in an urban area of South Korea. The data from adult patients with severe trauma who were assessed by emergency medical service providers and transported to three participating hospitals between 2014 to 2018 were analysed.

resultsWe developed and tested five machine learning algorithms-logistic regression analyses, extreme gradient boosting, support vector machine, random forest and elastic net (EN)-to predict TBI, TBI with intracranial haemorrhage or injury (TBI-I), TBI with ED or admission result of admission or transferred (TBI with non-discharge (TBI-ND)) and TBI with ED or admission result of death (TBI-D). A total of 1169 patients were included in the final analysis, and the proportions of TBI, TBI-I, TBI-ND and TBI-D were 24.0%, 21.5%, 21.3% and 3.7%, respectively. The EN model yielded an area under receiver-operator curve of 0.799 for TBI, 0.844 for TBI-I, 0.811 for TBI-ND and 0.871 for TBI-D. The EN model also yielded the highest specificity and significant reclassification improvement. Variables related to loss of consciousness, Glasgow Coma Scale and light reflex were the three most important variables to predict all outcomes.

conclusionOur results inform the diagnosis and prognosis of TBI. Machine learning models resulted in significant performance improvement over that with logistic regression analyses, and the best performing model was EN.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticEmergency Medical ServicesAdultGlasgow Coma ScaleHumansPrognosisRetrospective Studiesaccident & emergency medicineneurological injurytrauma management

Identifiers

PMID35022177
PMCPMC8756263
OpenAlexW4206577006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.