Predicting Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and International Validation of Prognostic Scores Based on Admission Characteristics

English version České info

Background:
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability. A reliable prediction of outcome on admission is of great clinical relevance. We aimed to develop prognostic models with readily available traditional and novel predictors.

Methods and Findings:
Prospectively collected individual patient data were analyzed from 11 studies. We considered predictors available at admission in logistic regression models to predict mortality and unfavorable outcome according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale at 6 mo after injury. Prognostic models were developed in 8,509 patients with severe or moderate TBI, with cross-validation by omission of each of the 11 studies in turn. External validation was on 6,681 patients from the recent Medical Research Council Corticosteroid Randomisation after Significant Head Injury (MRC CRASH) trial. We found that the strongest predictors of outcome were age, motor score, pupillary reactivity, and CT characteristics, including the presence of traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. A prognostic model that combined age, motor score, and pupillary reactivity had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between 0.66 and 0.84 at cross-validation. This performance could be improved (AUC increased by approximately 0.05) by considering CT characteristics, secondary insults (hypotension and hypoxia), and laboratory parameters (glucose and hemoglobin). External validation confirmed that the discriminative ability of the model was adequate (AUC 0.80). Outcomes were systematically worse than predicted, but less so in 1,588 patients who were from high-income countries in the CRASH trial.

Conclusions:
Prognostic models using baseline characteristics provide adequate discrimination between patients with good and poor 6 mo outcomes after TBI, especially if CT and laboratory findings are considered in addition to traditional predictors. The model predictions may support clinical practice and research, including the design and analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Vyšlo v časopise: Predicting Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and International Validation of Prognostic Scores Based on Admission Characteristics. PLoS Med 5(8): e165. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050165
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050165

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. TeasdaleGJennettB

1974

Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale.

Lancet

2. JennettBBondM

1975

Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage.

Lancet

480

484

3. JennettBTeasdaleGBraakmanRMinderhoudJKnill-JonesR

1976

Predicting outcome in individual patients after severe head injury.

Lancet

1031

1034

4. MachadoSGMurrayGDTeasdaleGM

1999

Evaluation of designs for clinical trials of neuroprotective agents in head injury. European Brain Injury Consortium.

J Neurotrauma

1131

1138

5. HernandezAVSteyerbergEWTaylorGSMarmarouAHabbemaJD

2005

Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

Neurosurgery

1244

1253

6. HernandezAVSteyerbergEWButcherIMushkudianiNTaylorGS

2006

Adjustment for strong predictors of outcome in traumatic brain injury trials: 25% reduction in sample size requirements in the IMPACT study.

J Neurotrauma

1295

1303

7. PerelPEdwardsPWentzRRobertsI

2006

Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

8. MushkudianiNAHukkelhovenCWHernandezAVMurrayGDChoiSC

2008

A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes.

J Clin Epidemiol

331

343

9. JusticeACCovinskyKEBerlinJA

1999

Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information.

Ann Intern Med

130

515

524

10. ReillyBMEvansAT

2006

Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions.

Ann Intern Med

144

201

209

11. MaasAIMarmarouAMurrayGDTeasdaleSGSteyerbergEW

2007

Prognosis and clinical trial design in traumatic brain injury: the IMPACT study.

J Neurotrauma

232

238

12. MurrayGDButcherIMcHughGSLuJMushkudianiNA

2007

Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study.

J Neurotrauma

329

337

13. EdwardsPArangoMBalicaLCottinghamREl-SayedH

2005

Final results of MRC CRASH, a randomised placebo-controlled trial of intravenous corticosteroid in adults with head injury-outcomes at 6 months.

Lancet

365

1957

1959

14. MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators,PerelPArangoMClaytonTEdwardsP

2008

Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients.

BMJ

336

425

429

15. MarmarouALuJButcherIMcHughGSMushkudianiNA

2007

IMPACT database of traumatic brain injury: design and description.

J Neurotrauma

239

250

16. MarshallLFMarshallSBKlauberMRVan Berkum ClarkMEisenbergH

1992

The diagnosis of head injury requires a classification based on computed axial tomography.

J Neurotrauma

Suppl 1

S287

292

17. McHughGSButcherISteyerbergEWLuJMushkudianiN

2007

Statistical approaches to the univariate prognostic analysis of the IMPACT database on traumatic brain injury.

J Neurotrauma

251

258

18. RubinDBSchenkerN

1991

Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications.

Stat Med

585

598

19. SchaferJLGrahamJW

2002

Missing data: our view of the state of the art.

Psychol Methods

147

177

20. EndersCK

2006

A primer on the use of modern missing-data methods in psychosomatic medicine research.

Psychosom Med

427

436

21. Van BuurenSOudshoornCGM

2006

mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. R package version 1.16

Available: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/S.vanBuuren/mi/hmtl/mice.htm. Accessed 12 December 2006.

22. R Development Core Team

2006

R: A language and environment for statistical computing

Vienna (Austria)

R Foundation for Statistical Computing

Available: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 30 June 2008.

23. McCullaghP

1980

Regression models for ordinal data.

J R Stat Soc Ser B

109

142

24. HarrellFE

2001

Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis

New York

Springer

568 pp.

25. HarrellFE

2006

Design: Design Package. R package version 2.0

http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/s/Design. Accessed 30 June 2008.

26. VergouweYSteyerbergEWEijkemansMJHabbemaJD

2005

Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models.

J Clin Epidemiol

475

483

27. MoonsKGHarrellFESteyerbergEW

2002

Should scoring rules be based on odds ratios or regression coefficients.

J Clin Epidemiol

1054

1055

28. MaasAIHukkelhovenCWMarshallLFSteyerbergEW

2005

Prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury with computed tomographic characteristics: a comparison between the computed tomographic classification and combinations of computed tomographic predictors.

Neurosurgery

1173

1182

29. Van BeekJGMushkudianiNASteyerbergEWButcherIMcHughGS

2007

Prognostic value of admission laboratory parameters in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study.

J Neurotrauma

315

328

30. van den BergheGWoutersPWeekersFVerwaestCBruyninckxF

2001

Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients.

N Engl J Med

345

1359

1367

31. SignoriniDFAndrewsPJJonesPAWardlawJMMillerJD

1999

Predicting survival using simple clinical variables: a case study in traumatic brain injury.

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry

32. SchreiberMAAokiNScottBGBeckJR

2002

Determinants of mortality in patients with severe blunt head injury.

Arch Surg

137

285

290

33. LemeshowSLe GallJR

1994

Modeling the severity of illness of ICU patients. A systems update.

JAMA

272

1049

1055

34. ChoDYWangYC

1997

Comparison of the APACHE III, APACHE II and Glasgow coma scale in acute head injury for prediction of mortality and functional outcome.

Intensive Care Med

35. HyamJAWelchCAHarrisonDAMenonDK

2006

Case mix, outcomes and comparison of risk prediction models for admissions to adult, general and specialist critical care units for head injury: a secondary analysis of the ICNARC Case Mix Programme Database.

Crit Care

Suppl 2

36. ChoiSC

1998

Sample size in clinical trials with dichotomous endpoints: use of covariables.

J Biopharm Stat

367

375

37. MurrayGDBarerDChoiSFernandesHGregsonB

2005

Design and analysis of phase III trials with ordered outcome scales: the concept of the sliding dichotomy.

J Neurotrauma