ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2023
Cost-Effectiveness of Blood-Based Brain Biomarkers for Screening Adults with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the French Health Care Setting.
Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of GFAP and UCH-L1 in predicting brain abnormalities on CT scans after mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of routine use of the GFAP and UCH-L1 TBI blood test for management of mild TBI on patient care in a European emergency department.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- GFAP and UCH-L1 for Ruling out Intracranial Lesions After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Observational
- Review
- Budget Impact Analysis of the Use of Specific Biomarkers GFAP and UCH-L1 in the Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Spain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Hospital-based health technology assessment of a screening rapid test MTBI (GFAP and UCH-L1 blood biomarkers) for mild traumatic brain injury.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Comparison of GFAP and UCH-L1 Measurements Using Two Automated Immunoassays (i-STATInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Maximizing the Clinical Value of Blood-Based Biomarkers for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Updated Review of Neurologic Concussion Biomarkers for Time-sensitive Point-of-care Testing.Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shockReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two blood-based brain biomarker tests such as the combination of glial fibrillary acidic protein and ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (GFAP+UCH-L1) or S100B have potential to reduce the need for head computed tomography (CT) scanning in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). We assessed the clinical and economic impact of using GFAP+UCH-L1 versus CT scan and GFAP+UCH-L1 versus S100B to screen adults with suspected mTBI presenting to an emergency department (ED). A decision model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes of GFAP+UCH-L1, CT scan, and S100B associated with these screening protocols. Model parameters were extracted from peer-reviewed articles, clinical guidelines, and expert opinion. Analysis was performed from a French health care system perspective (costs in 2020 euros). In the model, patients with a positive biomarker receive a CT scan to confirm the presence of intracranial lesions (ICLs). Depending on clinical state and biomarker and CT results, patients were discharged immediately, kept for observation in the ED, admitted for in-hospital stay and observation, or admitted for surgical management. Incorrect test results may lead to delayed treatment and poor outcomes or overtreatment. GFAP+UCH-L1 use was associated with an overall decrease in CT scans when compared with CT screening or S100B use (325.42 and 46.43 CTs per 1000 patients, respectively). The use of GFAP+UCH-L1 resulted in modest cost savings when compared with CT scanning and with S100B. In all cases, use of GFAP+UCH-L1 marginally improved quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and outcomes. Thus, screening with GFAP+UCH-L1 reduced the need for CT scans when compared with systematic CT scan screening or use of S100B while maintaining similar costs and health outcomes.
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.