Display options
Cite
Majdan M, Brazinova A, Rusnak M, et al. Outcome Prediction after Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of the Performance of Routinely Used Severity Scores and Multivariable Prognostic Models. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2017;8(1):20-29doi: 10.4103/0976-3147.193543.
Majdan, M., Brazinova, A., Rusnak, M., & Leitgeb, J. (2017). Outcome Prediction after Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of the Performance of Routinely Used Severity Scores and Multivariable Prognostic Models. Journal of neurosciences in rural practice, 8(1), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.193543
Majdan, Marek, et al. "Outcome Prediction after Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of the Performance of Routinely Used Severity Scores and Multivariable Prognostic Models." Journal of neurosciences in rural practice vol. 8,1 (2017): 20-29. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.193543
Majdan M, Brazinova A, Rusnak M, Leitgeb J. Outcome Prediction after Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of the Performance of Routinely Used Severity Scores and Multivariable Prognostic Models. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2017 Jan-Mar;8(1):20-29. doi: 10.4103/0976-3147.193543. PMID: 28149077; PMCID: PMC5225716.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2017 Jan-Mar;8(1):20-29. doi: 10.4103/0976-3147.193543.

Outcome Prediction after Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of the Performance of Routinely Used Severity Scores and Multivariable Prognostic Models.

Journal of neurosciences in rural practice

Marek Majdan, Alexandra Brazinova, Martin Rusnak, Johannes Leitgeb

Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences and Social Work, Trnava University, Trnava, Slovakia; International Neurotrauma Research Organization, Trnava University, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
  2. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences and Social Work, Trnava University, Trnava, Slovakia.
  3. Department of Traumatology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

PMID: 28149077 PMCID: PMC5225716 DOI: 10.4103/0976-3147.193543

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Prognosis of outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important in the assessment of quality of care and can help improve treatment and outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic value of relatively simple injury severity scores between each other and against a gold standard model - the IMPACT-extended (IMP-E) multivariable prognostic model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this study, 866 patients with moderate/severe TBI from Austria were analyzed. The prognostic performances of the Glasgow coma scale (GCS), GCS motor (GCSM) score, abbreviated injury scale for the head region, Marshall computed tomographic (CT) classification, and Rotterdam CT score were compared side-by-side and against the IMP-E score. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and Nagelkerke's

RESULTS: Comparing AUCs and

CONCLUSIONS: All tested simple scores can provide reasonably valid prognosis. However, it is confirmed that well-developed multivariable prognostic models outperform these scores significantly and should be used for prognosis in patients after TBI wherever possible.

Keywords: Abbreviated injury scale; Glasgow coma scale; outcome; prognosis; traumatic brain injury

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015 Jul 16;23:53 - PubMed
  2. Neurosurgery. 2014 Dec;75(6):632-46; discussion 646-7 - PubMed
  3. J Trauma. 2003 Apr;54(4):671-8; discussion 678-80 - PubMed
  4. PLoS Med. 2008 Aug 5;5(8):e165; discussion e165 - PubMed
  5. Crit Care Med. 1998 Jan;26(1):142-8 - PubMed
  6. J Neurotrauma. 2007 Feb;24(2):270-80 - PubMed
  7. Acad Radiol. 2014 May;21(5):605-11 - PubMed
  8. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006 Nov 14;6:38 - PubMed
  9. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Feb;74(2):639-46 - PubMed
  10. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Nov;94(11):2203-9 - PubMed
  11. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004 Jan;75(1):161-2 - PubMed
  12. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014 Nov 19;22:68 - PubMed
  13. Neurosurgery. 2005 Dec;57(6):1173-82; discussion 1173-82 - PubMed
  14. BMJ. 2008 Feb 23;336(7641):425-9 - PubMed
  15. J Neurotrauma. 2004 Sep;21(9):1131-40 - PubMed
  16. Nat Rev Neurol. 2013 Apr;9(4):231-6 - PubMed
  17. Lancet Neurol. 2008 Aug;7(8):728-41 - PubMed
  18. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):331-43 - PubMed
  19. J Trauma. 1974 Mar;14(3):187-96 - PubMed
  20. J Trauma. 2007 Apr;62(4):946-50 - PubMed
  21. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2007 Feb;119(1-2):23-8 - PubMed
  22. Eur J Emerg Med. 2009 Jun;16(3):153-8 - PubMed
  23. J Neurotrauma. 2013 Jan 1;30(1):17-22 - PubMed
  24. JAMA. 1971 Jan 11;215(2):277-80 - PubMed
  25. J Neurosci Nurs. 2007 Apr;39(2):68-75 - PubMed
  26. J Trauma. 1976 Nov;16(11):882-5 - PubMed
  27. J Neurotrauma. 2014 Jul 1;31(13):1146-52 - PubMed
  28. Emerg Med (Fremantle). 2003 Aug;15(4):353-60 - PubMed
  29. Lancet Neurol. 2010 May;9(5):543-54 - PubMed
  30. Lancet Neurol. 2014 Aug;13(8):844-54 - PubMed
  31. J Neurotrauma. 2015 Jan 15;32(2):101-8 - PubMed
  32. Brain Inj. 2013;27(3):293-300 - PubMed
  33. Crit Care Med. 2012 May;40(5):1609-17 - PubMed
  34. Lancet. 1974 Jul 13;2(7872):81-4 - PubMed
  35. J Neurotrauma. 2016 Aug 25;:null - PubMed
  36. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015 Oct;157(10):1683-96 - PubMed
  37. J Trauma. 2006 May;60(5):985-90 - PubMed

Publication Types