Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37078144›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2023

Prognostic Models for Global Functional Outcome and Post-Concussion Symptoms Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study.

Ana Mikolić, Ewout W Steyerberg, Suzanne Polinder, Lindsay Wilson, Marina Zeldovich, Nicole von Steinbuechel, Virginia F J Newcombe, David K Menon, Joukje van der Naalt, Hester F Lingsma and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Ana MikolićDepartment 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.
Suzanne PolinderDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Lindsay WilsonDivision of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Marina ZeldovichInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.
Nicole von SteinbuechelInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.
Virginia F J NewcombeDivision of Anesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
David K MenonDivision of Anesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Joukje van der NaaltDepartment of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands.
Hester F LingsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Andrew I R MaasDepartment of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
David van KlaverenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity of Cambridge · GBLeiden University Medical Center · NLTufts Medical Center · USUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BEUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), a substantial proportion of individuals do not fully recover on the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) or experience persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). We aimed to develop prognostic models for the GOSE and PPCS at 6 months after mTBI and to assess the prognostic value of different categories of predictors (clinical variables; questionnaires; computed tomography [CT]; blood biomarkers). From the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study, we included participants aged 16 or older with Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) 13-15. We used ordinal logistic regression to model the relationship between predictors and the GOSE, and linear regression to model the relationship between predictors and the Rivermead Post-concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) total score. First, we studied a pre-specified Core model. Next, we extended the Core model with other clinical and sociodemographic variables available at presentation (Clinical model). The Clinical model was then extended with variables assessed before discharge from hospital: early post-concussion symptoms, CT variables, biomarkers, or all three categories (extended models). In a subset of patients mostly discharged home from the emergency department, the Clinical model was extended with 2-3-week post-concussion and mental health symptoms. Predictors were selected based on Akaike's Information Criterion. Performance of ordinal models was expressed as a concordance index (C) and performance of linear models as proportion of variance explained (R2). Bootstrap validation was used to correct for optimism. We included 2376 mTBI patients with 6-month GOSE and 1605 patients with 6-month RPQ. The Core and Clinical models for GOSE showed moderate discrimination (C = 0.68 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.70 and C = 0.70[0.69 to 0.71], respectively) and injury severity was the strongest predictor. The extended models had better discriminative ability (C = 0.71[0.69 to 0.72] with early symptoms; 0.71[0.70 to 0.72] with CT variables or with blood biomarkers; 0.72[0.71 to 0.73] with all three categories). The performance of models for RPQ was modest (R2 = 4% Core; R2 = 9% Clinical), and extensions with early symptoms increased the R2 to 12%. The 2-3-week models had better performance for both outcomes in the subset of participants with these symptoms measured (C = 0.74 [0.71 to 0.78] vs. C = 0.63[0.61 to 0.67] for GOSE; R2 = 37% vs. 6% for RPQ). In conclusion, the models based on variables available before discharge have moderate performance for the prediction of GOSE and poor performance for the prediction of PPCS. Symptoms assessed at 2-3 weeks are required for better predictive ability of both outcomes. The performance of the proposed models should be examined in independent cohorts.

Indexed as

Brain ConcussionBrain Injuries, TraumaticPost-Concussion SyndromeBiomarkersHumansPrognosisBiomarkersbiomarkersGlasgow Outcome Scale Extendedmild traumatic brain injurypost-concussion symptomspredictorsprognostic model

Identifiers

PMID37078144
PMCPMC10458380
OpenAlexW4366463616

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.