Literature DB >> 32174214

Comparison of Care System and Treatment Approaches for Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in China versus Europe: A CENTER-TBI Survey Study.

Junfeng Feng1,2, Ernest van Veen3,4, Chun Yang1,2, Jilske A Huijben3, Hester F Lingsma3, Guoyi Gao1,2, Jiyao Jiang1,2, Andrew I R Maas5.   

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a huge public health and societal problem worldwide. Uncertainty exists on how care system and treatment approaches for TBI worked in China may differ from those in Europe. Better knowledge on this is important to facilitate interpretation of findings reported by Chinese researchers and to inform opportunities for collaborative studies. We aimed to investigate concordance and variations in TBI care between Chinese and European neurotrauma centers. Investigators from 52 centers in China and 68 in Europe involved in the Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study were invited to complete provider profiling (PP) questionnaires, which covered the main aspects of care system and treatment approaches of TBI care. Participating Chinese and European centers were mainly publicly funded and academic. More centers in China indicated available dedicated neuro-intensive care than those in Europe (98% vs. 60%), and treatment decisions in the ICU were mainly determined by neurosurgeons (58%) in China while in Europe, (neuro)intensivists often took the lead (61%). The ambulance dispatching system was automatic in half of Chinese centers (49%), whereas selective dispatching was more common in European centers (74%). For treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension, a decompressive craniectomy was more frequently regarded as general policy in China compared with in Europe (89% vs. 45%). We observed both concordance and substantial variations with regard to the various aspects of TBI care between Chinese and European centers. These findings are fundamental to guide future research and offer opportunities for collaborative comparative effectiveness research to identify best practices.

Entities:  

Keywords:  TBI care; comparison; provider profiling; traumatic brain injury; variation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32174214     DOI: 10.1089/neu.2019.6900

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurotrauma        ISSN: 0897-7151            Impact factor:   5.269


  4 in total

1.  Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit for Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Analysis of the CENTER-TBI China Registry.

Authors:  Chun Yang; Yuxiao Ma; Li Xie; Xiang Wu; Jiyuan Hui; Jiyao Jiang; Guoyi Gao; Junfeng Feng
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 3.532

Review 2.  Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor and Nerve Growth Factor Therapeutics for Brain Injury: The Current Translational Challenges in Preclinical and Clinical Research.

Authors:  Serena-Kaye Sims; Brynna Wilken-Resman; Crystal J Smith; Ashley Mitchell; Lilly McGonegal; Catrina Sims-Robinson
Journal:  Neural Plast       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 3.599

3.  The ratio of serum neuron-specific enolase level to admission glasgow coma scale score is associated with diffuse axonal injury in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Weiliang Chen; Guanjun Wang; Chunyu Yao; Zujian Zhu; Rui Chen; Wen Su; Rongcai Jiang
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.086

4.  Systematic Analysis of tRNA-Derived Small RNAs Reveals the Effects of Xuefu-Zhuyu Decoction on the Hippocampi of Rats after Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  Feng Dai; Tao Tang; Ruohuang Lu; Pengfei Li; Dandan Feng; Mingrui Hu; Yang Wang; Pingping Gan
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2022-09-17       Impact factor: 2.650

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.