Literature DB >> 18313557

A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes.

Nino A Mushkudiani1, Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven, Adrián V Hernández, Gordon D Murray, Sung C Choi, Andrew I R Maas, Ewout W Steyerberg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe the modeling techniques used for early prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to identify aspects for potential improvements. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We reviewed key methodological aspects of studies published between 1970 and 2005 that proposed a prognostic model for the Glasgow Outcome Scale of TBI based on admission data.
RESULTS: We included 31 papers. Twenty-four were single-center studies, and 22 reported on fewer than 500 patients. The median of the number of initially considered predictors was eight, and on average five of these were selected for the prognostic model, generally including age, Glasgow Coma Score (or only motor score), and pupillary reactivity. The most common statistical technique was logistic regression with stepwise selection of predictors. Model performance was often quantified by accuracy rate rather than by more appropriate measures such as the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. Model validity was addressed in 15 studies, but mostly used a simple split-sample approach, and external validation was performed in only four studies.
CONCLUSION: Although most models agree on the three most important predictors, many were developed on small sample sizes within single centers and hence lack generalizability. Modeling strategies have to be improved, and include external validation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18313557     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  45 in total

1.  External validity of risk models: Use of benchmark values to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect coefficients.

Authors:  Yvonne Vergouwe; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Analysis by categorizing or dichotomizing continuous variables is inadvisable: an example from the natural history of unruptured aneurysms.

Authors:  O Naggara; J Raymond; F Guilbert; D Roy; A Weill; D G Altman
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Accurate and dynamic predictive model for better prediction in medicine and healthcare.

Authors:  H O Alanazi; A H Abdullah; K N Qureshi; A S Ismail
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 1.568

4.  Outcome prediction in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a focus on computed tomography variables.

Authors:  Bram Jacobs; Tjemme Beems; Ton M van der Vliet; Arie B van Vugt; Cornelia Hoedemaekers; Janneke Horn; Gaby Franschman; Ian Haitsma; Joukje van der Naalt; Teuntje M J C Andriessen; George F Borm; Pieter E Vos
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.210

5.  Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Yvonne Vergouwe
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 29.983

6.  Brain injury biomarkers may improve the predictive power of the IMPACT outcome calculator.

Authors:  Endre Czeiter; Stefania Mondello; Noemi Kovacs; Janos Sandor; Andrea Gabrielli; Kara Schmid; Frank Tortella; Kevin K W Wang; Ronald L Hayes; Pal Barzo; Erzsebet Ezer; Tamas Doczi; Andras Buki
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 5.269

7.  New astroglial injury-defined biomarkers for neurotrauma assessment.

Authors:  Julia Halford; Sean Shen; Kyohei Itamura; Jaclynn Levine; Albert C Chong; Gregg Czerwieniec; Thomas C Glenn; David A Hovda; Paul Vespa; Ross Bullock; W Dalton Dietrich; Stefania Mondello; Joseph A Loo; Ina-Beate Wanner
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 8.  Developing Risk Prediction Models for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: a Systematic Review of Methodology and Reporting Quality.

Authors:  Zhang Wen; Ya Guo; Banghao Xu; Kaiyin Xiao; Tao Peng; Minhao Peng
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2016-01-23       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 9.  MMN and novelty P3 in coma and other altered states of consciousness: a review.

Authors:  Dominique Morlet; Catherine Fischer
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 10.  Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review.

Authors:  Susan Mallett; Patrick Royston; Rachel Waters; Susan Dutton; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.