Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35057637›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurotrauma2022

A Framework to Advance Biomarker Development in the Diagnosis, Outcome Prediction, and Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury.

Elisabeth A Wilde, Ina-Beate Wanner, Kimbra Kenney, Jessica Gill, James R Stone, Seth Disner, Caroline Schnakers, Retsina Meyer, Eric M Prager, Magali Haas and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neurotrauma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Elisabeth A WildeTBI and Concussion Center, Department of Neurology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Ina-Beate WannerSemel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, David Geffen School of Medicine University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Kimbra KenneyDepartment of Neurology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jessica GillDepartment of Nursing and Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
James R StoneDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Seth DisnerMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Caroline SchnakersResearch Institute, Casa Colina Hospital and Center for Healthcare, Pomona, California, USA.
Retsina MeyerDelix Therapeutics, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Eric M PragerCohen Veterans Bioscience, New York, New York, USA.
Magali HaasCohen Veterans Bioscience, New York, New York, USA.
Andreas JerominCohen Veterans Bioscience, New York, New York, USA.
Cohen Veterans Bioscience · USCasa Colina Centers for Rehabilitation · USJohns Hopkins University · USMinneapolis VA Health Care System · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USUniversity of California System · USUniversity of Utah · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

Exploring polygenic risk as a means for personalizing TBI rehabilitationIK2RX002922 · VA · MINNEAPOLIS VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI DISNER, SETH GORDON · 2019 to 2024
–
RRD VA IK2 RX002922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-modal biomarkers (e.g., imaging, blood-based, physiological) of unique traumatic brain injury (TBI) endophenotypes are necessary to guide the development of personalized and targeted therapies for TBI. Optimal biomarkers will be specific, sensitive, rapidly and easily accessed, minimally invasive, cost effective, and bidirectionally translatable for clinical and research use. For both uses, understanding how TBI biomarkers change over time is critical to reliably identify appropriate time windows for an intervention as the injury evolves. Biomarkers that enable researchers and clinicians to identify cellular injury and monitor clinical improvement, inflection, arrest, or deterioration in a patient's clinical trajectory are needed for precision healthcare. Prognostic biomarkers that reliably predict outcomes and recovery windows to assess neurodegenerative change and guide decisions for return to play or duty are also important. TBI biomarkers that fill these needs will transform clinical practice and could reduce the patient's risk for long-term symptoms and lasting deficits. This article summarizes biomarkers currently under investigation and outlines necessary steps to achieve short- and long-term goals, including how biomarkers can advance TBI treatment and improve care for patients with TBI.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticBiomarkersHumansPrognosisBiomarkersbiomarkersdiagnostic biomarkersneuroimagingneurophysiology, prognostic biomarkerstraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID35057637
PMCPMC8978568
OpenAlexW4206287106

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.