ArticleScientific reports2023
The significance of decompressive craniectomy for older patients with traumatic brain injury: a propensity score matching analysis from large multi-center data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning-enhanced causal inference of surgical decisions and rehabilitation strategies in traumatic brain injury.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Outcome after decompressive craniectomy in older adults after traumatic brain injury.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy of decompressive craniectomy (DC) for traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been investigated in two recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and DC is recommended as an optional treatment for improving overall survival compared to medical treatment. However, the two RCTs enrolled extremely young adults, and the efficacy of DC in older adults remains questionable. Therefore, to identify the efficacy of DC in older adults, we compared patients who received medical care with those who underwent DC after propensity score matching (PSM). From the Korea Multi-center Traumatic Brain Injury Database, 443 patients identified as having intracranial hypertension and a necessity of DC were retrospectively enrolled. The patients were classified into the DC (n = 375) and non-DC (n = 68) groups according to operation records. The PSM was conducted to match the patients in the DC group with those receiving medical care (non-DC). After PSM, the newly matched group (DC, n = 126) was compared with patients without DC (non-DC, n = 63). The mean difference in the logit of the propensity scores (LPS) was 0.00391 and the mean age of enrolled patients were 65 years. The results of the comparative analyses after PSM showed that the 6-month mortality rate of the non-DC group was higher than that of the DC group (61.9% vs. 51.6%, p = 0.179). In terms of favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score < 4), the DC group showed a lower rate of favorable mRS scores (11.9% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.296) than the non-DC group.
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.