在前瞻性观察队列 CENTER-TBI 和 TRACK-TBI 中验证创伤性脑损伤 GCS-瞳孔量表瞳孔反应性与 GCS 的增量预后性能

R. J. G. Vreeburg, F. van Leeuwen, G. T. Manley, J. K. Yue, P. M. Brennan, X. Sun, S. Jain, T. V. van Essen, W. C. Peul, A. I. R. Maas, D. K. Menon, E. W. Steyerberg, The CENTER-TBI Investigators and Participants, The TRACK-TBI Investigators and Participants, The Clinical Working Group of the NIH-NINDS initiative Tbi
{"title":"在前瞻性观察队列 CENTER-TBI 和 TRACK-TBI 中验证创伤性脑损伤 GCS-瞳孔量表瞳孔反应性与 GCS 的增量预后性能","authors":"R. J. G. Vreeburg, F. van Leeuwen, G. T. Manley, J. K. Yue, P. M. Brennan, X. Sun, S. Jain, T. V. van Essen, W. C. Peul, A. I. R. Maas, D. K. Menon, E. W. Steyerberg, The CENTER-TBI Investigators and Participants, The TRACK-TBI Investigators and Participants, The Clinical Working Group of the NIH-NINDS initiative Tbi","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.05.24308424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the incremental prognostic value of pupillary reactivity as captured in the GCS-Pupils score (GCS-P) or added as separate variable to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: We analyzed patients enrolled between 2014 and 2018 in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI, n=3521) and the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI, n=1439) cohorts. We used logistic regression to quantify the prognostic performances of GCS-P versus GCS according to Nagelkerke R2. Endpoints were mortality and unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score 1-4) at 6 months after injury. We estimated 95% confidence intervals with bootstrap resampling to summarize the improvement in prognostic capability. Results: GCS as a linear score had a R2 of 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-30) and 30% (95%CI 17-43) for mortality and 29% (95%CI 25-34) and 38% (95%CI 29-47) for unfavorable outcome in CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI respectively. In the meta-analysis, pupillary reactivity as a separate variable improved the R2 by an absolute value of 6% and 2% for mortality and unfavorable outcome (95%CI 4.0-7.7 and 1.2-3.0, respectively), with half the improvement captured in the GCS-P score (3%, 95%CI 2.1-3.3 and 1%, 95%CI 1-1.7, respectively). Conclusions: GCS-P has a stronger association with outcome after TBI than the GCS alone. However, for prognostic models, inclusion of GCS and pupillary reactivity as separate scores is preferable.","PeriodicalId":506788,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the GCS-Pupil scale in Traumatic Brain Injury Incremental prognostic performance of pupillary reactivity with GCS in the prospective observational cohorts CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI\",\"authors\":\"R. J. G. Vreeburg, F. van Leeuwen, G. T. Manley, J. K. Yue, P. M. Brennan, X. Sun, S. Jain, T. V. van Essen, W. C. Peul, A. I. R. Maas, D. K. Menon, E. W. Steyerberg, The CENTER-TBI Investigators and Participants, The TRACK-TBI Investigators and Participants, The Clinical Working Group of the NIH-NINDS initiative Tbi\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.06.05.24308424\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To compare the incremental prognostic value of pupillary reactivity as captured in the GCS-Pupils score (GCS-P) or added as separate variable to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: We analyzed patients enrolled between 2014 and 2018 in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI, n=3521) and the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI, n=1439) cohorts. We used logistic regression to quantify the prognostic performances of GCS-P versus GCS according to Nagelkerke R2. Endpoints were mortality and unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score 1-4) at 6 months after injury. We estimated 95% confidence intervals with bootstrap resampling to summarize the improvement in prognostic capability. Results: GCS as a linear score had a R2 of 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-30) and 30% (95%CI 17-43) for mortality and 29% (95%CI 25-34) and 38% (95%CI 29-47) for unfavorable outcome in CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI respectively. In the meta-analysis, pupillary reactivity as a separate variable improved the R2 by an absolute value of 6% and 2% for mortality and unfavorable outcome (95%CI 4.0-7.7 and 1.2-3.0, respectively), with half the improvement captured in the GCS-P score (3%, 95%CI 2.1-3.3 and 1%, 95%CI 1-1.7, respectively). Conclusions: GCS-P has a stronger association with outcome after TBI than the GCS alone. However, for prognostic models, inclusion of GCS and pupillary reactivity as separate scores is preferable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":506788,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.05.24308424\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.05.24308424","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较瞳孔反应性在创伤性脑损伤(TBI)中作为 GCS-瞳孔评分(GCS-P)或作为单独变量加入格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)的增量预后价值。方法我们分析了2014年至2018年期间加入欧洲创伤性脑损伤神经创伤有效性研究协作组(CENTER-TBI,n=3521)和创伤性脑损伤研究与临床知识转化组(TRACK-TBI,n=1439)队列的患者。我们采用逻辑回归法,根据纳格尔克 R2 量化 GCS-P 与 GCS 的预后效果。终点为伤后 6 个月的死亡率和不利预后(格拉斯哥预后量表-扩展评分 1-4 分)。我们使用引导重采样法估计了 95% 的置信区间,以总结预后能力的改善情况。结果:在 CENTER-TBI 和 TRACK-TBI 中,作为线性评分的 GCS 对死亡率的 R2 分别为 24%(95% 置信区间 [CI] 17-30)和 30%(95%CI 17-43),对不利预后的 R2 分别为 29%(95%CI 25-34)和 38%(95%CI 29-47)。在荟萃分析中,瞳孔反应性作为一个单独变量,在死亡率和不利预后方面的 R2 绝对值分别提高了 6% 和 2%(95%CI 分别为 4.0-7.7 和 1.2-3.0),而 GCS-P 评分提高了一半(分别为 3%,95%CI 2.1-3.3 和 1%,95%CI 1-1.7)。结论与单纯的 GCS 相比,GCS-P 与创伤后预后的关系更为密切。然而,在预后模型中,最好将 GCS 和瞳孔反应性作为单独的评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validation of the GCS-Pupil scale in Traumatic Brain Injury Incremental prognostic performance of pupillary reactivity with GCS in the prospective observational cohorts CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI
Objective: To compare the incremental prognostic value of pupillary reactivity as captured in the GCS-Pupils score (GCS-P) or added as separate variable to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: We analyzed patients enrolled between 2014 and 2018 in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI, n=3521) and the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI, n=1439) cohorts. We used logistic regression to quantify the prognostic performances of GCS-P versus GCS according to Nagelkerke R2. Endpoints were mortality and unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score 1-4) at 6 months after injury. We estimated 95% confidence intervals with bootstrap resampling to summarize the improvement in prognostic capability. Results: GCS as a linear score had a R2 of 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-30) and 30% (95%CI 17-43) for mortality and 29% (95%CI 25-34) and 38% (95%CI 29-47) for unfavorable outcome in CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI respectively. In the meta-analysis, pupillary reactivity as a separate variable improved the R2 by an absolute value of 6% and 2% for mortality and unfavorable outcome (95%CI 4.0-7.7 and 1.2-3.0, respectively), with half the improvement captured in the GCS-P score (3%, 95%CI 2.1-3.3 and 1%, 95%CI 1-1.7, respectively). Conclusions: GCS-P has a stronger association with outcome after TBI than the GCS alone. However, for prognostic models, inclusion of GCS and pupillary reactivity as separate scores is preferable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reemergence of Oropouche virus between 2023 and 2024 in Brazil Towards Personalized Breast Cancer Risk Management: A Thai Cohort Study on Polygenic Risk Scores Hot Spring Residency and Disease Association: a Crossover Gene-Environment Interaction (GxE) Study in Taiwan Evaluation of the diagnostic value of YiDiXie™-SS, YiDiXie™-HS and YiDiXie™-D in renal cancer Dual exposure-by-polygenic score interactions highlight disparities across social groups in the proportion needed to benefit
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1