Literature DB >> 16331165

Prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury with computed tomographic characteristics: a comparison between the computed tomographic classification and combinations of computed tomographic predictors.

Andrew I R Maas1, Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven, Lawrence F Marshall, Ewout W Steyerberg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: The Marshall computed tomographic (CT) classification identifies six groups of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), based on morphological abnormalities on the CT scan. This classification is increasingly used as a predictor of outcome. We aimed to examine the predictive value of the Marshall CT classification in comparison with alternative CT models.
METHODS: The predictive value was investigated in the Tirilazad trials (n = 2269). Alternative models were developed with logistic regression analysis and recursive partitioning. Six month mortality was used as outcome measure. Internal validity was assessed with bootstrapping techniques and expressed as the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).
RESULTS: The Marshall CT classification indicated reasonable discrimination (AUC = 0.67), which could be improved by rearranging the underlying individual CT characteristics (AUC = 0.71). Performance could be further increased by adding intraventricular and traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage and by a more detailed differentiation of mass lesions and basal cisterns (AUC = 0.77). Models developed with logistic regression analysis and recursive partitioning showed similar performance. For clinical application we propose a simple CT score, which permits a more clear differentiation of prognostic risk, particularly in patients with mass lesions.
CONCLUSION: It is preferable to use combinations of individual CT predictors rather than the Marshall CT classification for prognostic purposes in TBI. Such models should include at least the following parameters: status of basal cisterns, shift, traumatic subarachnoid or intraventricular hemorrhage, and presence of different types of mass lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16331165     DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000186013.63046.6b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  209 in total

1.  Quantitative CT improves outcome prediction in acute traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Esther L Yuh; Shelly R Cooper; Adam R Ferguson; Geoffrey T Manley
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 5.269

2.  A clinical decision rule to predict adult patients with traumatic intracranial haemorrhage who do not require intensive care unit admission.

Authors:  Daniel K Nishijima; Kiarash Shahlaie; Angela Echeverri; James F Holmes
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 3.  MDCT imaging of traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Valentina Lolli; Martina Pezzullo; Isabelle Delpierre; Niloufar Sadeghi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Trauma Bay Disposition of Infants and Young Children With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Positive Head Imaging.

Authors:  Corina Noje; Eric M Jackson; Isam W Nasr; Philomena M Costabile; Marcelo Cerullo; Katherine Hoops; Lindsey Rasmussen; Eric Henderson; Susan Ziegfeld; Lisa Puett; Courtney L Robertson
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.624

5.  Automatic Quantification of Computed Tomography Features in Acute Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  Saurabh Jain; Thijs Vande Vyvere; Vasilis Terzopoulos; Diana Maria Sima; Eloy Roura; Andrew Maas; Guido Wilms; Jan Verheyden
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 5.269

6.  Very early administration of progesterone for acute traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  David W Wright; Sharon D Yeatts; Robert Silbergleit; Yuko Y Palesch; Vicki S Hertzberg; Michael Frankel; Felicia C Goldstein; Angela F Caveney; Harriet Howlett-Smith; Erin M Bengelink; Geoffrey T Manley; Lisa H Merck; L Scott Janis; William G Barsan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Addressing the challenges of obtaining functional outcomes in traumatic brain injury research: missing data patterns, timing of follow-up, and three prognostic models.

Authors:  Leila R Zelnick; Laurie J Morrison; Sean M Devlin; Eileen M Bulger; Karen J Brasel; Kellie Sheehan; Joseph P Minei; Jeffrey D Kerby; Samuel A Tisherman; Sandro Rizoli; Riyad Karmy-Jones; Rardi van Heest; Craig D Newgard
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 5.269

8.  The course of intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury: relation with outcome and CT-characteristics.

Authors:  Rosette Bremmer; Bauke M de Jong; Michiel Wagemakers; Joost G Regtien; Joukje van der Naalt
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.210

9.  Sleep Features on Continuous Electroencephalography Predict Rehabilitation Outcomes After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  Danielle K Sandsmark; Monisha A Kumar; Catherine S Woodward; Sarah E Schmitt; Soojin Park; Miranda M Lim
Journal:  J Head Trauma Rehabil       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.710

10.  Assessing bicycle-related trauma using the biomarker S100B reveals a correlation with total injury severity.

Authors:  E P Thelin; E Zibung; L Riddez; C Nordenvall
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 3.693

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.