ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2023
Prognostic Value of CRASH and IMPACT Models for Predicting Mortality and Unfavorable Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting in-hospital mortality in acute traumatic intracranial hematomas: derivation of a rapid assessment tool.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Multidimensional Preinjury Health and 6-month Outcome After Traumatic Brain Injury in Older Adults Presenting With Mainly GCS 13-15.The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Article
- To Do or Not to Do: Decompressive Craniectomy for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2026Review
- Traumatic brain injury recovery prediction by harmonizing real brain CT and synthetic brain MRI: a pilot study.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Outcome in adult patients with severe TBI, using a management protocol allowing a cerebral perfusion pressure ≤ 60 mmHg - a retrospective study over 10 years.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Traumatic Brain Injury and Artificial Intelligence: Shaping the Future of Neurorehabilitation-A Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Look at Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Journal in 2023.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Treatment with Rapamycin in Animal Models of Traumatic Brain Injuries; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head injury (CRASH) and the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) are two prognostic models frequently used in predicting the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury. There are ongoing debates about which of the two models has a better prognostic value. This study aims to compare the CRASH and IMPACT in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury. Method: We performed a literature search using Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until August 17, 2022. After two independent researchers screened the articles, we included all the original articles comparing the prognostic value of IMPACT and CRASH models in patients with traumatic brain injury. The outcomes evaluated were mortality and unfavorable outcome. The data of the included articles were analyzed using STATA 17.0 statistical program, and we reported an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for comparison. Results: We included the data from 16 studies. The analysis showed that the areas under the curve of the IMPACT core model and CRASH basic model do not differ in predicting the mortality of patients (OR=0.99; p=0.905) and their six-month unfavorable outcome (OR=1.01; p=0.719). Additionally, the CRASH CT model showed no difference from the IMPACT extended (OR=0.98; p=0.507) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.298) models in predicting the mortality of patients with traumatic brain injury. We also observed similar findings in the six-month unfavorable outcome, showing that the CRASH CT model does not differ from the IMPACT extended (OR=1.00; p=0.990) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.570) in predicting the unfavorable outcome in head trauma patients. Conclusion: Low to very low level of evidence shows that IMPACT and CRASH models have similar values in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury. Since the discriminative power of the IMPACT Core and CRASH basic models is not different from the IMPACT extended, IMPACT Lab, and CRASH CT models, it may be possible to only use the core and basic models in examining the prognosis of patients with traumatic injuries to the brain.
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.