Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42582391›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2026

Implementing whole blood TBI point-of-care testing in Level 1 trauma centers: protocol for emergency department implementation for TBI (EDI for TBI) hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation trial.

Shawn Eagle, Molly McNett, Debbie Madhok, Jeffrey Bazarian, David Barton, Kathryn Edelman, Jane Sharpless, Gigi Sugar, Christine Gotthardt, Alan Wu and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07373509 (Effectiveness of the Traumatic Brain Injury Whole Blood Test on Improving Assessment and Triage for Patients With GCS 13-15 Presenting to Emergency Departments), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07373509 recruitingnot on this map

Effectiveness of the Traumatic Brain Injury Whole Blood Test on Improving Assessment and Triage for Patients With GCS 13-15 Presenting to Emergency Departments

TypeobservationalSponsorShawn EagleRan2026 to 2030Enrolled340ConditionsTBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), Implementation ResearchArmsi-STAT Alinity TBI test
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Shawn EagleDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Molly McNettCollege of Nursing, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Debbie MadhokDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Jeffrey BazarianDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
David BartonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.
Kathryn EdelmanDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Jane SharplessDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Gigi SugarDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Christine GotthardtDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Alan WuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Victoria ZhangDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.
Nam TranDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Sarah DegenerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
Kian Merchant-BornaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
Geoffrey ManleyDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
David OkonkwoDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Technological advances have enabled rapid screening for traumatic brain injury (TBI) at the point of care (POC), with devices approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in part to address throughput and resource allocation challenges in emergency departments (EDs). This point-of-care test quantifies the concentration of two biological markers of brain injury in whole blood after venipuncture. Methods: The objective of this study is to identify determinants for routine use of POC whole blood TBI test and to evaluate its impact on clinical and health system outcomes across three academic Level 1 trauma centers with accompanying EDs from three distinct geographical regions of the United States. We will utilize an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II approach for this study involving 280 patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 13-15 (i.e., Results: Data will be collected ( Discussion: Our goal is to provide evidence that use of the POC whole blood TBI test can reliably and safely improve clinical practice in EDs by reducing rates of unnecessary radiation exposure, shortening time spent in the emergency department, and demonstrating the efficacy of an implementation blueprint that can facilitate uptake of this test at similar Level 1 trauma center emergency departments. Clinical Trial Registration: [ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT07373509].

Indexed as

blood biomarkerscomputed tomography scansemergency departmentGFAPpoint-of-caretraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID42582391
PMCPMC13457380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.