ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2022
Management of traumatic brain injury: practical development of a recent proposal.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Empowering Support for Family Members of Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury During the Acute Care: Insights From Family Members and Nurses.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Patient Experiences of and Priorities for Traumatic Brain Injury Health Care in a US Level 1 Trauma Center: A Qualitative Study.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2025Article
- Does a service provide safe, effective rehabilitation? An evaluation method for providers and purchasers.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Response to: Management of traumatic brain injury: practical development of a recent proposal.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent article identified weaknesses in the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The authors suggested some reasons but overlooked two of the reasons for the low quality of services: a lack of resources and a systemic failure to organise rehabilitation services. They suggested early involvement of a condition-specific service with a new 'neuroscience clinician' and additional neuro-navigators, but the evidence shows this approach does not work. Their proposal failed to acknowledge the neuroscience skills of existing rehabilitation medicine consultants and teams, and ignored the many non-TBI problems patients will have and the consequent need for expert rehabilitation input. We revise and develop their proposal, suggesting an alternative way to improve services. Rehabilitation teams should work in parallel with acute services and remain responsible for the rehabilitation of patients as they move through different settings. This suggested development of rehabilitation mirrors the development followed by geriatric medicine from 40 years ago.
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.