24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    3
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Risk of Deterioration in GCS13–15 Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury Identified by Computed Tomography Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The optimal management of mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with injuries identified by computed tomography (CT) brain scan is unclear. Some guidelines recommend hospital admission for an observation period of at least 24 h. Others argue that selected lower-risk patients can be discharged from the Emergency Department (ED). The objective of our review and meta-analysis was to estimate the risk of death, neurosurgical intervention, and clinical deterioration in mild TBI patients with injuries identified by CT brain scan, and assess which patient factors affect the risk of these outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis adhering to PRISMA standards of protocol and reporting were conducted. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was undertaken to estimate pooled risks for: clinical deterioration, neurosurgical intervention, and death. Meta-regression was used to explore between-study variation in outcome estimates using study population characteristics. Forty-nine primary studies and five reviews were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The estimated pooled risk for the outcomes of interest were: clinical deterioration 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.7%–15.8%), neurosurgical intervention 3.5% (95% CI: 2.2%–4.9%), and death 1.4% (95% CI: 0.8%–2.2%). Twenty-one studies presented within-study estimates of the effect of patient factors. Meta-regression of study characteristics and pooling of within-study estimates of risk factor effect found the following factors significantly affected the risk for adverse outcomes: age, initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), type of injury, and anti-coagulation. The generalizability of many studies was limited due to population selection. Mild TBI patients with injuries identified by CT brain scan have a small but clinically important risk for serious adverse outcomes. This review has identified several prognostic factors; research is needed to derive and validate a usable clinical decision rule so that low-risk patients can be safely discharged from the ED.

          Related collections

          Most cited references147

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors.

            Previous work has identified 6 important areas to consider when evaluating validity and bias in studies of prognostic factors: participation, attrition, prognostic factor measurement, confounding measurement and account, outcome measurement, and analysis and reporting. This article describes the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, which includes questions related to these areas that can inform judgments of risk of bias in prognostic research.A working group comprising epidemiologists, statisticians, and clinicians developed the tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain. Forty-three groups reviewing studies addressing prognosis in other topic areas used the tool and provided feedback. Most reviewers (74%) reported that reaching consensus on judgments was easy. Median completion time per study was 20 minutes; interrater agreement (κ statistic) reported by 9 review teams varied from 0.56 to 0.82 (median, 0.75). Some reviewers reported challenges making judgments across prompting items, which were addressed by providing comprehensive guidance and examples. The refined Quality In Prognosis Studies tool may be useful to assess the risk of bias in studies of prognostic factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data

              Background Meta-analyses have become an essential tool in synthesizing evidence on clinical and epidemiological questions derived from a multitude of similar studies assessing the particular issue. Appropriate and accessible statistical software is needed to produce the summary statistic of interest. Methods Metaprop is a statistical program implemented to perform meta-analyses of proportions in Stata. It builds further on the existing Stata procedure metan which is typically used to pool effects (risk ratios, odds ratios, differences of risks or means) but which is also used to pool proportions. Metaprop implements procedures which are specific to binomial data and allows computation of exact binomial and score test-based confidence intervals. It provides appropriate methods for dealing with proportions close to or at the margins where the normal approximation procedures often break down, by use of the binomial distribution to model the within-study variability or by allowing Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilize the variances. Metaprop was applied on two published meta-analyses: 1) prevalence of HPV-infection in women with a Pap smear showing ASC-US; 2) cure rate after treatment for cervical precancer using cold coagulation. Results The first meta-analysis showed a pooled HPV-prevalence of 43% (95% CI: 38%-48%). In the second meta-analysis, the pooled percentage of cured women was 94% (95% CI: 86%-97%). Conclusion By using metaprop, no studies with 0% or 100% proportions were excluded from the meta-analysis. Furthermore, study specific and pooled confidence intervals always were within admissible values, contrary to the original publication, where metan was used.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Neurotrauma
                J. Neurotrauma
                neu
                Journal of Neurotrauma
                Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (140 Huguenot Street, 3rd FloorNew Rochelle, NY 10801USA )
                0897-7151
                1557-9042
                01 March 2018
                01 March 2018
                01 March 2018
                : 35
                : 5
                : 703-718
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Hull York Medical School, University of Hull , Hull, United Kingdom.
                [ 2 ]School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield , Sheffield, United Kingdom.
                [ 3 ]Emergency Department, Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust , Hull, United Kingdom.
                [ 4 ]Hull York Medical School, University of Hull , Hull, United Kingdom.
                [ 5 ]Emergency Unit, Presidio Ospedaliero Morgagni-Pierantoni , AUSL della Romagna, Forlì, Italy.
                [ 6 ]Department of Health Sciences, University of York , Alcuin Research Resource Center, Heslington, York, United Kingdom.
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to: Carl Marincowitz, MB BChir, MSc, BA, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull Hull HU6, 7RX, United Kingdom

                E-mail: carl.marincowitz@ 123456hyms.ac.uk
                Article
                10.1089/neu.2017.5259
                10.1089/neu.2017.5259
                5831640
                29324173
                5757ece0-10a4-4f69-8286-4fe46145c855
                © Carl Marincowitz et al., 2018; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

                This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 11, Tables: 2, References: 146, Pages: 16
                Categories
                Review

                intra-cranial hemorrhage,mild traumatic brain injury,minor head injury,prognostic modeling

                Comments

                Comment on this article