English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background A major challenge in management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is to assess the heterogeneity of TBI pathology and outcome prediction. A reliable outcome prediction would have both great value for the healthcare provider, but also for the patients and their relatives. A well-known prediction model is the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) prognostic calculator. The aim of this study was to externally validate all three modules of the IMPACT calculator on TBI patients admitted to Uppsala University hospital (UUH). Method TBI patients admitted to UUH are continuously enrolled into the Uppsala neurointensive care unit (NICU) TBI Uppsala Clinical Research (UCR) quality register. The register contains both clinical and demographic data, radiological evaluations, and outcome assessments based on the extended Glasgow outcome scale extended (GOSE) performed at 6 months to 1 year. In this study, we included 635 patients with severe TBI admitted during 2008–2020. We used IMPACT core parameters: age, motor score, and pupillary reaction. Results The patients had a median age of 56 (range 18–93), 142 female and 478 male. Using the IMPACT Core model to predict outcome resulted in an AUC of 0.85 for mortality and 0.79 for unfavorable outcome. The CT module did not increase AUC for mortality and slightly decreased AUC for unfavorable outcome to 0.78. However, the lab module increased AUC for mortality to 0.89 but slightly decreased for unfavorable outcome to 0.76. Comparing the predicted risk to actual outcomes, we found that all three models correctly predicted low risk of mortality in the surviving group of GOSE 2–8. However, it produced a greater variance of predicted risk in the GOSE 1 group, denoting general underprediction of risk. Regarding unfavorable outcome, all models once again underestimated the risk in the GOSE 3–4 groups, but correctly predicts low risk in GOSE 5–8. Conclusions The results of our study are in line with previous findings from centers with modern TBI care using the IMPACT model, in that the model provides adequate prediction for mortality and unfavorable outcome. However, it should be noted that the prediction is limited to 6 months outcome and not longer time interval.

Prognosis in moderate-severe traumatic brain injury in a Swedish cohort and external validation of the IMPACT models