Charlotte Oris1, Bruno Pereira2, Julie Durif1, Jeanne Simon-Pimmel3, Christoph Castellani4, Sergio Manzano5, Vincent Sapin1,6, Damien Bouvier7,6. 1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and. 2. Biostatistics Unit, Direction de la Recherche Clinique, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 3. Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, University Hospital, Nantes, France. 4. Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 5. Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland; and. 6. GReD, Université Clermont Auvergne, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 7. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and dbouvier@chu-clermontferrand.fr.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The usefulness of S100B has been noted as a biomarker in the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in adults. However, S100B efficacy as a biomarker in children has previously been relatively unclear. OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis is conducted to assess the prognostic value of S100B in predicting intracerebral lesions in children after mTBI. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including children suffering mTBI who underwent S100B measurement and computed tomography (CT) scans were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Of 1030 articles screened, 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98%-100%) and 34% (95% CI: 30%-38%), respectively. A second analysis was based on the collection of 373 individual data points from 4 studies. Sensitivity and specificity results, obtained from reference ranges in children with a sampling time <3 hours posttrauma, were 97% (95% CI: 84.2%-99.9%) and 37.5% (95% CI: 28.8%-46.8%), respectively. Only 1 child had a low S100B level and a positive CT scan result without clinically important traumatic brain injury. LIMITATIONS: Only patients undergoing both a CT scan and S100B testing were selected for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: S100B serum analysis as a part of the clinical routine could significantly reduce the number of CT scans performed on children with mTBI. Sampling should take place within 3 hours of trauma. Cutoff levels should be based on pediatric reference ranges.
CONTEXT: The usefulness of S100B has been noted as a biomarker in the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in adults. However, S100B efficacy as a biomarker in children has previously been relatively unclear. OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis is conducted to assess the prognostic value of S100B in predicting intracerebral lesions in children after mTBI. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including children suffering mTBI who underwent S100B measurement and computed tomography (CT) scans were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Of 1030 articles screened, 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98%-100%) and 34% (95% CI: 30%-38%), respectively. A second analysis was based on the collection of 373 individual data points from 4 studies. Sensitivity and specificity results, obtained from reference ranges in children with a sampling time <3 hours posttrauma, were 97% (95% CI: 84.2%-99.9%) and 37.5% (95% CI: 28.8%-46.8%), respectively. Only 1 child had a low S100B level and a positive CT scan result without clinically important traumatic brain injury. LIMITATIONS: Only patients undergoing both a CT scan and S100B testing were selected for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS:S100B serum analysis as a part of the clinical routine could significantly reduce the number of CT scans performed on children with mTBI. Sampling should take place within 3 hours of trauma. Cutoff levels should be based on pediatric reference ranges.
Authors: Jamie Kearns; Aisling M Ross; Darragh R Walsh; Rachel M Cahalane; Rita Hinchion; Maria C Ryan; Elaine Conway; Tom M Comyns; Ian C Kenny; Eibhlís M O'Connor; Kieran D McGourty; John Joseph Eugene Mulvihill Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2020-11-26
Authors: Juliane Gust; Olivia C Finney; Daniel Li; Hannah M Brakke; Roxana M Hicks; Robert B Futrell; Danielle N Gamble; Stephanie D Rawlings-Rhea; Hedieh K Khalatbari; Gisele E Ishak; Virginia E Duncan; Robert F Hevner; Michael C Jensen; Julie R Park; Rebecca A Gardner Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Natasha J Olby; Ji-Hey Lim; Nikki Wagner; Natalia Zidan; Peter J Early; Christopher L Mariani; Karen R Muñana; Eric Laber Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: René Schiffner; Sabine J Bischoff; Thomas Lehmann; Andrey Irintchev; Marius Nistor; Cornelius Lemke; Martin Schmidt Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Jonas J Calsbeek; Eduardo A González; Donald A Bruun; Michelle A Guignet; Nycole Copping; Mallory E Dawson; Alexandria J Yu; Jeremy A MacMahon; Naomi H Saito; Danielle J Harvey; Jill L Silverman; Pamela J Lein Journal: Neurotoxicology Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 4.294