ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026
Does timing matter? Unlocking the value of repeated MRI in the early phases after severe traumatic brain injury.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebral MRI after severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) may refine lesion characterization and support prognosis, but the optimal timing within the early course remains uncertain.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 17 adult sTBI patients (GCS ≤ 8) who underwent two clinically indicated 3 T MRI examinations: an early scan (≤ 72 h) and a subacute scan (day 12-14). Three board-certified neurointensivists, blinded to scan timing, independently rated lesion burden across standard sequences (T1, T2/FLAIR, SWI, DWI) and evaluated (i) comparative clinical utility of early vs subacute MRI, (ii) imaging-only prognosis (expected favorable vs unfavorable functional outcome, dichotomized by Glasgow Outcome Scale), and (iii) whether imaging findings would be expected to prompt a management change. Inter-rater agreement was quantified by ICC (lesion counts) and Fleiss' kappa (categorical ratings). The patient (MRI-pair) was the statistical unit; rater-level ratings were used for reliability estimation, not as independent observations.
resultsAt the patient level, early and subacute MRI were judged equally useful in 12/17 (70.6%) cases (Fleiss' kappa for pairwise utility rating: 0.33). Lesion burden demonstrated substantial overlap between time points; paired comparisons of rater-averaged lesion counts did not indicate a systematic difference between early and subacute MRI across T1, T2/FLAIR, SWI, or DWI (all p > 0.05). Monitoring-related artifacts were frequent but rarely reduced overall interpretability.
conclusionsIn this selected cohort able to undergo two MRIs within the early course of sTBI, early and subacute MRI provided largely concordant information. MRI timing should be individualized based on clinical stability and the specific diagnostic question; routine repetition within the first two weeks may not be necessary.
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.