Literature DB >> 34861770

Traumatic Brain Injury: What Is a Favorable Outcome?

David A Zuckerman1, Joseph T Giacino2, Yelena G Bodien2,3.   

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) results in disparate outcomes ranging from persistent disorders of consciousness to symptom resolution. Despite the breadth and complexity of TBI recovery, most clinical trials dichotomize outcome by establishing an arbitrary cut-point, above and below which recovery is described as "favorable" and "unfavorable," respectively. For example, the widely used eight-level Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) is typically collapsed into these two categories. Dichotomizing the GOSE into "favorable" and "unfavorable" outcome may limit detection of treatment effects in TBI clinical trials, contribute to imprecise prognostic counseling, and unduly influence decision-making with regard to withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. We illustrate the lack of standardization in defining "unfavorable" and "favorable" TBI outcome on the GOSE by identifying the broad range of cut-points, from a score of 3 (part-time supervision in the home required) to 7 (presence of some residual of symptoms), that have been used to dichotomize the GOSE. We also highlight the ethical concerns related to characterizing TBI outcomes solely from the perspective of investigators and clinicians, rather than patients and caregivers. Finally, we suggest that a pragmatic, immediate solution to GOSE dichotomization is to report the likelihood of achieving each of the eight GOSE outcome levels and propose a study design for a new patient- and caregiver-centered TBI outcome metric.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Glasgow Outcome Scale; outcome; traumatic brain injury

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34861770      PMCID: PMC9248332          DOI: 10.1089/neu.2021.0356

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurotrauma        ISSN: 0897-7151            Impact factor:   4.869


  4 in total

1.  The leap to ordinal: Detailed functional prognosis after traumatic brain injury with a flexible modelling approach.

Authors:  Shubhayu Bhattacharyay; Ioan Milosevic; Lindsay Wilson; David K Menon; Robert D Stevens; Ewout W Steyerberg; David W Nelson; Ari Ercole
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  The clinical and ethical challenges of treating comatose patients following severe brain injury.

Authors:  Jeffrey V Rosenfeld; Tiit I Mathiesen
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2022-10-04       Impact factor: 2.816

3.  Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness.

Authors:  Michael J Young; Yelena G Bodien; Brian L Edlow
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-02-02

4.  Proceedings of the Second Curing Coma Campaign NIH Symposium: Challenging the Future of Research for Coma and Disorders of Consciousness.

Authors:  Shraddha Mainali; Venkatesh Aiyagari; Sheila Alexander; Yelena Bodien; Varina Boerwinkle; Melanie Boly; Emery Brown; Jeremy Brown; Jan Claassen; Brian L Edlow; Ericka L Fink; Joseph J Fins; Brandon Foreman; Jennifer Frontera; Romergryko G Geocadin; Joseph Giacino; Emily J Gilmore; Olivia Gosseries; Flora Hammond; Raimund Helbok; J Claude Hemphill; Karen Hirsch; Keri Kim; Steven Laureys; Ariane Lewis; Geoffrey Ling; Sarah L Livesay; Victoria McCredie; Molly McNett; David Menon; Erika Molteni; DaiWai Olson; Kristine O'Phelan; Soojin Park; Len Polizzotto; Jose Javier Provencio; Louis Puybasset; Chethan P Venkatasubba Rao; Courtney Robertson; Benjamin Rohaut; Michael Rubin; Tarek Sharshar; Lori Shutter; Gisele Sampaio Silva; Wade Smith; Robert D Stevens; Aurore Thibaut; Paul Vespa; Amy K Wagner; Wendy C Ziai; Elizabeth Zink; Jose I Suarez
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 3.532

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.