Literature DB >> 29631517

Simplifying the use of prognostic information in traumatic brain injury. Part 2: Graphical presentation of probabilities.

Gordon D Murray1, Paul M Brennan2, Graham M Teasdale3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Clinical features such as those included in the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, pupil reactivity, and patient age, as well as CT findings, have clear established relationships with patient outcomes due to neurotrauma. Nevertheless, predictions made from combining these features in probabilistic models have not found a role in clinical practice. In this study, the authors aimed to develop a method of displaying probabilities graphically that would be simple and easy to use, thus improving the usefulness of prognostic information in neurotrauma. This work builds on a companion paper describing the GCS-Pupils score (GCS-P) as a tool for assessing the clinical severity of neurotrauma. METHODS Information about early GCS score, pupil response, patient age, CT findings, late outcome according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale, and mortality were obtained at the individual adult patient level from the CRASH (Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury; n = 9045) and IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Clinical Trials in TBI; n = 6855) databases. These data were combined into a pooled data set for the main analysis. Logistic regression was first used to model the combined association between the GCS-P and patient age and outcome, following which CT findings were added to the models. The proportion of variability in outcomes "explained" by each model was assessed using Nagelkerke's R2. RESULTS The authors observed that patient age and GCS-P have an additive effect on outcome. The probability of mortality 6 months after neurotrauma is greater with increasing age, and for all age groups the probability of death is greater with decreasing GCS-P. Conversely, the probability of favorable recovery becomes lower with increasing age and lessens with decreasing GCS-P. The effect of combining the GCS-P with patient age was substantially more informative than the GCS-P, age, GCS score, or pupil reactivity alone. Two-dimensional charts were produced displaying outcome probabilities, as percentages, for 5-year increments in age between 15 and 85 years, and for GCS-Ps ranging from 1 to 15; it is readily seen that the movement toward combinations at the top right of the charts reflects a decreasing likelihood of mortality and an increasing likelihood of favorable outcome. Analysis of CT findings showed that differences in outcome are very similar between patients with or without a hematoma, absent cisterns, or subarachnoid hemorrhage. Taken in combination, there is a gradation in risk that aligns with increasing numbers of any of these abnormalities. This information provides added value over age and GCS-P alone, supporting a simple extension of the earlier prognostic charts by stratifying the original charts in the following 3 CT groupings: none, only 1, and 2 or more CT abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS The important prognostic features in neurotrauma can be brought together to display graphically their combined effects on risks of death or on prospects for independent recovery. This approach can support decision making and improve communication of risk among health care professionals, patients, and their relatives. These charts will not replace clinical judgment, but they will reduce the risk of influences from biases.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRASH = Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury; GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale; GCS-P = GCS-Pupils score; GCS-PA = GCS-P plus age; GCS-PA CT = GCS-P plus age plus CT findings; GOS = Glasgow Outcome Scale; Glasgow Coma Scale; IMPACT = International Mission for Prognosis and Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury; PRS = pupil reactivity score; SAH = subarachnoid hemorrhage; TBI = traumatic brain injury; charts; head injury; prognosis; trauma; traumatic brain injury

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29631517     DOI: 10.3171/2017.12.JNS172782

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  6 in total

1.  Prediction of Early Mortality Among Children With Moderate or Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Based on a Nomogram Integrating Radiological and Inflammation-Based Biomarkers.

Authors:  Pingyi Zhu; Nimo Mohamed Hussein; Jing Tang; Lulu Lin; Yu Wang; Lan Li; Kun Shu; Pinfa Zou; Yikai Xia; Guanghui Bai; Zhihan Yan; Xinjian Ye
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 4.086

2.  Vibrational Spectroscopy for the Triage of Traumatic Brain Injury Computed Tomography Priority and Hospital Admissions.

Authors:  Ashton G Theakstone; Paul M Brennan; Katherine Ashton; Endre Czeiter; Michael D Jenkinson; Khaja Syed; Matthew J Reed; Matthew J Baker
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 4.869

3.  A Retrospective Cohort Study Evaluating the Use of the Modified Early Warning Score to Improve Outcome Prediction in Neurosurgical Patients.

Authors:  Michael Karsy; Joshua C Hunsaker; Forrest Hamrick; Matthew N Sanford; Amanda Breviu; William T Couldwell; Devin Horton
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-08-29

4.  Initial pupil status is a strong predictor for in-hospital mortality after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Authors:  Marius M Mader; Andras Piffko; Nora F Dengler; Franz L Ricklefs; Lasse Dührsen; Nils O Schmidt; Jan Regelsberger; Manfred Westphal; Stefan Wolf; Patrick Czorlich
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Acute diffuse edematous-hemorrhagic Epstein-Barr virus meningoencephalitis: A case report.

Authors:  Jingzhe Han; Zhilei Kang; Yanan Xie; Hui Li; Haiyan Yan; Xueqin Song
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Selection of CT variables and prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Djino Khaki; Virpi Hietanen; Alba Corell; Helena Odenstedt Hergès; Johan Ljungqvist
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 2.953

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.