ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2026
Consensus statements for the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury and clinical integration of blood-based biomarkers in the Asia-Pacific region: a modified Delphi study.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely and accurate diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) remains challenging in acute care. In the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, marked heterogeneity in healthcare infrastructure, computed tomography (CT) utilization, and diagnostic pathways underscores the need for practical, standardized approaches to assessment. Blood-based biomarkers, particularly glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), have shown promising diagnostic performance and have been incorporated into clinical pathways in other regions. However, their role in APAC emergency care workflows has not been systematically addressed. This study aimed to develop expert consensus on the definition, diagnosis, and clinical integration of these biomarkers into mTBI assessment across APAC.
methodsA structured modified Delphi process was employed, involving ten expert panelists representing emergency medicine, neurosurgery, and neurology from APAC countries including Australia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. A targeted literature review informed the development of 34 preliminary statements, consolidated into 11 statements covering mTBI definition, diagnostic approach, and biomarker integration. Panelists rated each statement using a 4-point Likert scale across two anonymous online voting rounds, with consensus defined as ≥ 70% agreement. Voting results were reviewed at a face-to-face meeting in Bangkok in May 2025, where statements were refined before Round 2 voting.
resultsAll 11 final consensus statements achieved agreement ratings of 90% to 100% following Round 2 voting. Seven statements reached 100% agreement and four achieved 90% agreement. Statements addressed definitions of TBI and mTBI, the adjunctive diagnostic role of GFAP and UCH-L1 within a 12-hour post-injury window, their utility in diagnostically challenging subgroups such as anticoagulated and intoxicated patients, and the continued primacy of clinical assessment and local imaging pathways in guiding triage, imaging, discharge, and follow-up decisions.
conclusionsThis modified Delphi study produced 11 high-consensus statements that provide a regional framework for the diagnosis of mTBI and for integration of GFAP and UCH-L1 into biomarker-supported assessment pathways across APAC. These biomarkers may help reduce avoidable CT imaging and support triage in selected patients when used as adjuncts to clinical assessment and established imaging decision-making. The statements are intended to support locally adapted protocols and future APAC-specific implementation and validation studies.
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.