ArticleCureus2026
Retrospective Validation of the Brain Injury Guidelines at a Single Community Institution.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) continues to increase in incidence and resource utilization. The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) aim to standardize management of isolated blunt TBI and reduce unnecessary interventions; however, adoption in community and regional trauma centers remains limited. We sought to validate BIG criteria at a regional Level I trauma center. Methods We performed a retrospective review of adults with isolated blunt TBI and positive head CT findings from 2018 to 2019. Patients requiring emergent surgery or with polytrauma were excluded. Patients were stratified into BIG 1-3 categories. Outcomes included neurological deterioration (GCS change >2), neurosurgical intervention (Subdural or intraparenchymal Bolt and Craniotomy or craniectomy), mortality, hemorrhage progression, and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of adverse outcomes. Results Among 557 patients (BIG 1: 30.5%, BIG 2: 19.7%, BIG 3: 49.7%), median age was 77 years, and falls accounted for 86% of injuries. Overall rates of neurological deterioration, neurosurgical intervention, and mortality were 5.4% (n=557), 1.6% (n=557), and 3.6% (n=557), respectively. No BIG 1 patients required neurosurgical intervention, and adverse outcomes were rare. Hemorrhage progression occurred in 12.7% (n=534), most frequently in BIG 3 (17.8%, n=534). Independent predictors of adverse outcomes included BIG 3 classification (OR 6.8), age ≥75 years (OR 2.9), anticoagulation use (OR 2.2), and hemorrhage progression (OR 5.1). Length of stay increased significantly with higher BIG classification (p<0.001). Conclusions The BIG criteria are safe and effective for risk stratification in a regional Level I trauma center. BIG 1 patients demonstrated minimal risk and may not require routine admission, repeat imaging, or neurosurgical consultation. Broader implementation may reduce resource utilization and improve care efficiency without compromising outcomes.
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.