ArticleTranslational neuroscience2024
Comparative analysis of CRASH and IMPACT in predicting the outcome of 340 patients with traumatic brain injury.
Article in Translational neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Both the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and the Corticosteroid randomization after significant head injury (CRASH) models are globally acknowledged prognostic algorithms for assessing traumatic brain injury (TBI) outcomes. The aim of this study is to externalize the validation process and juxtapose the prognostic accuracy of the CRASH and IMPACT models in moderate-to-severe TBI patients in the Chinese population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study encompassing a cohort of 340 adult TBI patients (aged > 18 years), presenting with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores ranging from 3 to 12. The data were accrued over 2 years (2020-2022). The primary endpoints were 14-day mortality rates and 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores. Analytical metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discrimination and the Brier score for predictive precision were employed to quantitatively evaluate the model performance. Results: Mortality rates at the 14-day and 6-month intervals, as well as the 6-month unfavorable GOS outcomes, were established to be 22.06, 40.29, and 65.59%, respectively. The IMPACT models had area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.873, 0.912, and 0.927 for the 6-month unfavorable GOS outcomes, with respective Brier scores of 0.14, 0.12, and 0.11. On the other hand, the AUCs associated with the six-month mortality were 0.883, 0.909, and 0.912, and the corresponding Brier scores were 0.15, 0.14, and 0.13, respectively. The CRASH models exhibited AUCs of 0.862 and 0.878 for the 6-month adverse outcomes, with uniform Brier scores of 0.18. The 14-day mortality rates had AUCs of 0.867 and 0.87, and corresponding Brier scores of 0.21 and 0.22, respectively. Conclusion: Both the CRASH and IMPACT algorithms offer reliable prognostic estimations for patients suffering from craniocerebral injuries. However, compared to the CRASH model, the IMPACT model has superior predictive accuracy, albeit at the cost of increased computational intricacy.
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.