Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability world-wide. The ability to accurately predict patient outcome after TBI has an important role in clinical practice and research. Prognostic models are statistical models that combine two or more items of patient data to predict clinical outcome. They may improve predictions in TBI patients. Multiple prognostic models for TBI have accumulated for decades but none of them is widely used in clinical practice. The objective of this systematic review is to critically assess existing prognostic models for TBI METHODS: Studies that combine at least two variables to predict any outcome in patients with TBI were searched in PUBMED and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently examined titles, abstracts and assessed whether each met the pre-defined inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 53 reports including 102 models were identified. Almost half (47%) were derived from adult patients. Three quarters of the models included less than 500 patients. Most of the models (93%) were from high income countries populations. Logistic regression was the most common analytical strategy to derived models (47%). In relation to the quality of the derivation models (n:66), only 15% reported less than 10% pf loss to follow-up, 68% did not justify the rationale to include the predictors, 11% conducted an external validation and only 19% of the logistic models presented the results in a clinically user-friendly way CONCLUSION: Prognostic models are frequently published but they are developed from small samples of patients, their methodological quality is poor and they are rarely validated on external populations. Furthermore, they are not clinically practical as they are not presented to physicians in a user-friendly way. Finally because only a few are developed using populations from low and middle income countries, where most of trauma occurs, the generalizability to these setting is limited

Low-value clinical practices in adult traumatic brain injury : an umbrella review

Despite numerous interventions and treatment options, the outcomes of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have improved little over the last 3 decades, which raises concern about the value of care in this patient population. We aimed to synthesize the evidence on 14 potentially low-value clinical practices in TBI care. Using umbrella review methodology, we identified systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of 14 potentially low-value practices in adults with acute TBI. We present data on methodological quality (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews), reported effect sizes, and credibility of evidence (I to IV). The only clinical practice with evidence of benefit was therapeutic hypothermia (credibility of evidence II to IV). However, the most recent meta-analysis on hypothermia based on high-quality trials suggested harm (credibility of evidence IV). Meta-analyses on platelet transfusion for patients on antiplatelet therapy were all consistent with harm but were statistically non-significant. For the following practices, effect estimates were consistently close to the null: computed tomography (CT) in adults with mild TBI who are low-risk on a validated clinical decision rule; repeat CT in adults with mild TBI on anticoagulant therapy with no clinical deterioration; antibiotic prophylaxis for external ventricular drain placement; and decompressive craniectomy for refractory intracranial hypertension. We identified five clinical practices with evidence of lack of benefit or harm. However, evidence could not be considered to be strong for any clinical practice as effect measures were imprecise and heterogeneous, systematic reviews were often of low quality, and most included studies had a high risk of bias