ReviewNeurosurgical review2023
Evaluating the state of non-invasive imaging biomarkers for traumatic brain injury.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- FLAIR extending beyond a quadrant (FEQ) of the cerebrum as a qualitative imaging biomarker: a conceptual proposition and proof-of-principle.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2025Article
- Blink reflex as a prognostic indicator for patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: a prospective case-control study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive imaging biomarkers are useful for prognostication in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at high risk for morbidity with invasive procedures. The authors present findings from a scoping review discussing the pertinent biomarkers. Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, and Scopus were queried for original research on imaging biomarkers for prognostication of TBI in adult patients. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Data was synthesized and confidence evaluated with the linked evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our search yielded 3104 unique citations, 44 of which were included in this review. Study populations varied in TBI severity, as defined by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), including: mild (n=9), mild and moderate (n=3), moderate and severe (n=7), severe (n=6), and all GCS scores (n=17). Diverse imaging modalities were used for prognostication, predominantly computed tomography (CT) only (n=11), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) only (n=9), and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) (N=9). The biomarkers included diffusion coefficient mapping, metabolic characteristics, optic nerve sheath diameter, T1-weighted signal changes, cortical cerebral blood flow, axial versus extra-axial lesions, T2-weighted gradient versus spin echo, translocator protein levels, and trauma imaging of brainstem areas. The majority (93%) of studies identified that the imaging biomarker of interest had a statistically significant prognostic value; however, these are based on a very low to low level of quality of evidence. No study directly compared the effects on specific TBI treatments on the temporal course of imaging biomarkers. The current literature is insufficient to make a strong recommendation about a preferred imaging biomarker for TBI, especially considering GRADE criteria revealing low quality of evidence. Rigorous prospective research of imaging biomarkers of TBI is warranted to improve the understanding of TBI severity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37682375What 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.