Differences between Men and Women in Treatment and Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant cause of disability, but little is known about sex and gender differences after TBI. We aimed to analyze the association between sex/gender, and the broad range of care pathways, treatment characteristics, and outcomes following mild and moderate/severe TBI. We performed mixed-effects regression analyses in the prospective multi-center Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study, stratified for injury severity and age, and adjusted for baseline characteristics. Outcomes were various care pathway and treatment variables, and 6-month measures of functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), post-concussion symptoms (PCS), and mental health symptoms. The study included 2862 adults (36% women) with mild (mTBI; Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score 13-15), and 1333 adults (26% women) with moderate/severe TBI (GCS score 3-12). Women were less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU; odds ratios [OR] 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-0.8) following mTBI. Following moderate/severe TBI, women had a shorter median hospital stay (OR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5-1.0). Following mTBI, women had poorer outcomes; lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE; OR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6), lower generic and disease-specific HRQoL, and more severe PCS, depression, and anxiety. Among them, women under age 45 and above age 65 years showed worse 6-month outcomes compared with men of the same age. Following moderate/severe TBI, there was no difference in GOSE (OR 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7-1.2), but women reported more severe PCS (OR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.6). Men and women differ in care pathways and outcomes following TBI. Women generally report worse 6-month outcomes, but the size of differences depend on TBI severity and age. Future studies should examine factors that explain these differences.</p

Prediction of Global Functional Outcome and Post-Concussive Symptoms after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: External Validation of Prognostic Models in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) Study

The majority of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are categorized as mild, according to a baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13-15. Prognostic models that were developed to predict functional outcome and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS) after mild TBI have rarely been externally validated. We aimed to externally validate models predicting 3-12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) or PPCS in adults with mild TBI. We analyzed data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project, which included 2862 adults with mild TBI, with 6-month GOSE available for 2374 and Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) results available for 1605 participants. Model performance was evaluated based on calibration (graphically and characterized by slope and intercept) and discrimination (C-index). We validated five published models for 6-month GOSE and three for 6-month PPCS scores. The models used different cutoffs for outcome and some included symptoms measured 2 weeks post-injury. Discriminative ability varied substantially (C-index between 0.58 and 0.79). The models developed in the Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury (CRASH) trial for prediction of GOSE </p

Does poor methodological quality of prediction modeling studies translate to poor model performance?: An illustration in traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Prediction modeling studies often have methodological limitations, which may compromise model performance in new patients and settings. We aimed to examine the relation between methodological quality of model development studies and their performance at external validation. METHODS: We systematically searched for externally validated multivariable prediction models that predict functional outcome following moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Risk of bias and applicability of development studies was assessed with the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Each model was rated for its presentation with sufficient detail to be used in practice. Model performance was described in terms of discrimination (AUC), and calibration. Delta AUC (dAUC) was calculated to quantify the percentage change in discrimination between development and validation for all models. Generalized estimation equations (GEE) were used to examine the relation between methodological quality and dAUC while controlling for clustering. RESULTS: We included 54 publications, presenting ten development studies of 18 prediction models, and 52 external validation studies, including 245 unique validations. Two development studies (four models) were found to have low risk of bias (RoB). The other eight publications (14 models) showed high or unclear RoB. The median dAUC was positive in low RoB models (dAUC 8%, [IQR - 4% to 21%]) and negative in high RoB models (dAUC - 18%, [IQR - 43% to 2%]). The GEE showed a larger average negative change in discrimination for high RoB models (- 32% (95% CI: - 48 to - 15) and unclear RoB models (- 13% (95% CI: - 16 to - 10)) compared to that seen in low RoB models. CONCLUSION: Lower methodological quality at model development associates with poorer model performance at external validation. Our findings emphasize the importance of adherence to methodological principles and reporting guidelines in prediction modeling studies

Does poor methodological quality of prediction modeling studies translate to poor model performance?:An illustration in traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Prediction modeling studies often have methodological limitations, which may compromise model performance in new patients and settings. We aimed to examine the relation between methodological quality of model development studies and their performance at external validation. METHODS: We systematically searched for externally validated multivariable prediction models that predict functional outcome following moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Risk of bias and applicability of development studies was assessed with the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Each model was rated for its presentation with sufficient detail to be used in practice. Model performance was described in terms of discrimination (AUC), and calibration. Delta AUC (dAUC) was calculated to quantify the percentage change in discrimination between development and validation for all models. Generalized estimation equations (GEE) were used to examine the relation between methodological quality and dAUC while controlling for clustering. RESULTS: We included 54 publications, presenting ten development studies of 18 prediction models, and 52 external validation studies, including 245 unique validations. Two development studies (four models) were found to have low risk of bias (RoB). The other eight publications (14 models) showed high or unclear RoB. The median dAUC was positive in low RoB models (dAUC 8%, [IQR − 4% to 21%]) and negative in high RoB models (dAUC − 18%, [IQR − 43% to 2%]). The GEE showed a larger average negative change in discrimination for high RoB models (− 32% (95% CI: − 48 to − 15) and unclear RoB models (− 13% (95% CI: − 16 to − 10)) compared to that seen in low RoB models. CONCLUSION: Lower methodological quality at model development associates with poorer model performance at external validation. Our findings emphasize the importance of adherence to methodological principles and reporting guidelines in prediction modeling studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41512-022-00122-0

Health care utilization and outcomes in older adults after Traumatic Brain Injury: A CENTER-TBI study

Introduction: The incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is increasingly common in older adults aged ≥65 years, forming a growing public health problem. However, older adults are underrepresented in TBI research. Therefore, we aimed to provide an overview of health-care utilization, and of six-month outcomes after TBI and their determinants in older adults who sustained a TBI. Methods: We used data from the prospective multi-center Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. In-hospital and post-hospital health care utilization and outcomes were described for patients aged ≥65 years. Ordinal and linear regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mental health symptoms six-months post-injury. Results: Of 1254 older patients, 45% were admitted to an ICU with a mean length of stay of 9 days. Nearly 30% of the patients received inpatient rehabilitation. In total, 554/1254 older patients completed the six-month follow-up questionnaires. The mortality rate was 9% after mild and 60% after moderate/severe TBI, and full recovery based on GOSE was reported for 44% of patients after mild and 6% after moderate/severe TBI. Higher age and increased injury severity were primarily associated with functional impairment, while pre-injury systemic disease, psychiatric conditions and lower educational level were associated with functional impairment, lower generic and disease-specific HRQoL and mental health symptoms. Conclusion: The rate of impairment and disability following TBI in older adults is substantial, and poorer outcomes across domains are associated with worse preinjury health. Nonetheless, a considerable number of patients fully or partially returns to their preinjury functioning. There should not be pessimism about outcomes in older adults who survive

Health care utilization and outcomes in older adults after Traumatic Brain Injury:A CENTER-TBI study

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is increasingly common in older adults aged ≥65 years, forming a growing public health problem. However, older adults are underrepresented in TBI research. Therefore, we aimed to provide an overview of health-care utilization, and of six-month outcomes after TBI and their determinants in older adults who sustained a TBI. METHODS: We used data from the prospective multi-center Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. In-hospital and post-hospital health care utilization and outcomes were described for patients aged ≥65 years. Ordinal and linear regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mental health symptoms six-months post-injury. RESULTS: Of 1254 older patients, 45% were admitted to an ICU with a mean length of stay of 9 days. Nearly 30% of the patients received inpatient rehabilitation. In total, 554/1254 older patients completed the six-month follow-up questionnaires. The mortality rate was 9% after mild and 60% after moderate/severe TBI, and full recovery based on GOSE was reported for 44% of patients after mild and 6% after moderate/severe TBI. Higher age and increased injury severity were primarily associated with functional impairment, while pre-injury systemic disease, psychiatric conditions and lower educational level were associated with functional impairment, lower generic and disease-specific HRQoL and mental health symptoms. CONCLUSION: The rate of impairment and disability following TBI in older adults is substantial, and poorer outcomes across domains are associated with worse preinjury health. Nonetheless, a considerable number of patients fully or partially returns to their preinjury functioning. There should not be pessimism about outcomes in older adults who survive