Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2025
External validation of the modified Brain Injury Guidelines: an observational 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. 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
backgroundMild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a frequent cause of emergency department (ED) admission, with most cases being uncomplicated. However, a subset of patients presents with intracranial findings on CT, such as cerebral hemorrhage or skull fracture, that raise concerns for potential clinical deterioration. The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) provide a risk-stratification framework for managing such patients but do not address cerebral hygromas or indeterminate radiological lesions, both commonly encountered in clinical practice. This study aimed to externally validate the mBIG criteria, including patients with cerebral hygromas and indeterminate radiological lesions on CT scan, in order to assess their prognostic accuracy for severe neurological outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective single-center observational study of 451 adult patients presenting to the ED with a blunt head trauma who underwent initial CT imaging and clinical evaluation. Patients were classified as mBIG 1, 2, or 3 based on CT findings and clinical criteria. Outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records, with the primary outcome defined as a composite of death due to mTBI, neurosurgical intervention, or admission to intensive care unit.
resultsAmong 237 patients classified as mBIG 1, 38.8% exhibited an indeterminate radiological lesion and 35% had cerebral hygromas. The primary outcome was observed in only one mBIG 1 patient (0.4%; 95% CI: 0.0%–2.3%), demonstrating high sensitivity (94.7%; 95% CI: 74%-99.9%) and low negative likelihood ratio (0.1; 95% CI: 0.01-0.65), albeit with wide confidence intervals due to limited sample size. Radiological progression occurred in 6.3% of mBIG 1 patients, though none required neurosurgical intervention or intensive care admission
conclusionThe mBIG criteria appear to be a safe and efficient approach for managing complicated mTBI, even in cases involving cerebral hygromas and indeterminate radiological lesions. This preliminary validation suggests good prognostic performance, but further large-scale prospective studies are needed to confirm applicability in routine ED practice.
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.