Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37027437›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Sensitivity of outcome instruments in a priori selected patient groups after traumatic brain injury: Results from the CENTER-TBI study.

Nicole von Steinbuechel, Katrin Rauen, Amra Covic, Ugne Krenz, Fabian Bockhop, Isabelle Mueller, Katrin Cunitz, Suzanne Polinder, Ewout W Steyerberg, Johannes Vester and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Nicole von SteinbuechelInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Katrin RauenDepartment of Geriatric Psychiatry, Psychiatric Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Amra CovicInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Ugne KrenzInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Fabian BockhopInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Isabelle MuellerInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Katrin CunitzInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Suzanne PolinderDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes VesterDepartment of Biometry and Clinical Research, idv Data Analysis and Study Planning, Gauting, Germany.
Marina ZeldovichInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0172-9904
CENTER-TBI participants investigators
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USErasmus MC · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLPTV Group (Germany) · DEUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can negatively impact patients' lives on many dimensions. Multiple instruments are available for evaluating TBI outcomes, but it is still unclear which instruments are the most sensitive for that purpose. This study examines the sensitivity of nine outcome instruments in terms of their ability to discriminate within and between specific patient groups, selected a priori as identified from the literature, at three different time points within a year after TBI (i.e., 3, 6, and 12 months post injury). The sensitivity of the instruments to sociodemographic (sex, age, education), premorbid (psychological health status), and injury-related (clinical care pathways, TBI and extracranial injury severity) factors was assessed by means of cross-sectional multivariate Wei-Lachin analyses. The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE)-the standard in the field of TBI for measuring functional recovery-demonstrated the highest sensitivity in most group comparisons. However, as single functional scale, it may not be able to reflect the multidimensional nature of the outcome. Therefore, the GOSE was used as a reference for further sensitivity analyses on more specific outcome scales, addressing further potential deficits following TBI. The physical component summary score (PCS) of the generic health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments (SF-36v2/-12v2) and the TBI-specific HRQOL instruments (QOLIBRI/-OS) were most sensitive in distinguishing recovery after TBI across all time points and patient groups, followed by the RPQ assessing post-concussion symptoms and the PHQ-9 measuring depression. The SF-36v2/-12v2 mental component summary score and the GAD-7 measuring anxiety were less sensitive in several group comparisons. The assessment of the functional recovery status combined with generic HRQOL (the PCS of the SF-12v2), disease-specific HRQOL (QOLIBRI-OS), and post-concussion symptoms (RPQ) can provide a sensitive, comprehensive, yet time-efficient evaluation of the health status of individuals after TBI in different patient groups.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesBrain Injuries, TraumaticPost-Concussion SyndromeCross-Sectional StudiesHumansQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID37027437
PMCPMC10081802
OpenAlexW4362693016

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.