Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2025
Diagnostic accuracy of GFAP and UCH-L1 for intracranial hemorrhage in blunt head trauma: a prospective study.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the Integration of Inflammatory Markers with Clinical Scoring Systems Improve the Prediction of Neurosurgical Intervention in Emergency Department Patients Diagnosed with Traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Age- and Sex-Related Differences in GFAP and UCH-L1 Levels in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Upregulation of interleukin-1β and interleukin-18 in traumatic brain injury patients and their potential as biomarkers.PloS one · 2026Article
- Blood-Based Biomarkers for Traumatic Brain Injury: A New Era in Diagnosis and Prognosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly and accurate identification of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is crucial, yet conventional imaging techniques like CT have limitations including radiation exposure and overutilization. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of two blood-based biomarkers, Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP) and Ubiquitin Carboxy-Terminal Hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), in detecting ICH in emergency department patients with blunt head trauma.
methodsThis single-center prospective observational study included 442 patients presenting with blunt head trauma at a university emergency department. Plasma GFAP and UCH-L1 levels were measured prior to cranial CT imaging. ROC curve analysis, sensitivity, specificity, and logistic regression were used to assess diagnostic performance and associations between biomarker levels and CT-confirmed ICH.
resultsICH was detected in 6.1% of patients. GFAP and UCH-L1 both demonstrated high diagnostic performance with AUC values of 0.98 and 0.95, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were 92.6% and 98.8% for GFAP, and 92.6% and 99.0% for UCH-L1. When both biomarkers were concurrently elevated, sensitivity remained at 92.6% with a negative predictive value of 99.5%. Univariate logistic regression revealed strong associations with ICH: GFAP (OR = 1025.0, 95% CI: 189.4-5548.3) and UCH-L1 (OR = 1284.4, 95% CI: 224.4-7352.3), both p < 0.001.
conclusionGFAP and UCH-L1 are highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for early ICH detection in blunt head trauma. Their combined use may enhance triage accuracy, reduce unnecessary imaging, and support rapid clinical decision-making in emergency settings. Larger multicenter studies are warranted to validate these findings and standardize cut-off values.
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.