SynthesisCJEM2026
Brain injury guidelines for the management of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in CJEM, 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
objectivesThe Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) serve to predict the severity of traumatic brain injuries resulting in radiologic findings. The use of BIG promises significant time and resource savings, over routine neurosurgical consultation and repeat imaging. After more than a decade of validation, studies have demonstrated BIG to reliably predict adverse outcomes. We sought to analyze the existing literature to determine the pooled efficacy of BIG and its variations.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023481186). Seven databases were searched, and articles published from inception to October 2025 were included. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. The main outcomes of interest were neurologic deterioration, neurosurgical intervention and death. Bias was assessed using a modified PROBAST tool.
resultsFrom the 4,733 studies screened, 47 articles were identified for inclusion, of which 23 studied the original BIG and were suitable for meta-analysis. The remaining 2 used BIG variants, from which, there was insufficient data to conduct meta-analyses. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for BIG1 to rule out neurological deterioration, neurosurgical intervention and death were 98.3% (95%CI 95.7-99.4) and 12.7% (95%CI (1.5-58.7)), 98.7% (95%CI 97.4-99.4) and 14.4%(95%CI 3.3-45.8), and 98.2% (95%CI 96.6-99.1) and 12.8% (95%CI 3.0- 41.0) respectively.
conclusionsBIG is highly sensitive for predicting adverse outcomes among traumatic brain injury patients. BIG may be used to identify patients appropriate for discharge, without further immediate investigations or consultation for their traumatic brain injury. It may also play a role in reducing unnecessary transfers for neurosurgical consultation. BIG specificity is low, however, further study of BIG variants may offer solutions to the BIG's shortcomings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42827223What 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.