外伤性脑损伤的预后预测:马来西亚单一神经外科中心的IMPACT和CRASH预后模型

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of neurosurgical sciences Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05249-8
Jafri M Abdullah, Zamzuri Idris, Abdul R Ghani, Mei S Lim
{"title":"外伤性脑损伤的预后预测:马来西亚单一神经外科中心的IMPACT和CRASH预后模型","authors":"Jafri M Abdullah,&nbsp;Zamzuri Idris,&nbsp;Abdul R Ghani,&nbsp;Mei S Lim","doi":"10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05249-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has recently become a major concern for public health care and a socioeconomic burden internationally. Prognostic models are mathematical models developed from specific populations which are used to predict the mortality and unfavorable outcomes especially in trauma centers. Hence, we formulate a study to perform an external validation of the IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models; the CRASH model to predict 14-day mortality and 6-month unfavorable outcome and the IMPACT model to estimate 6-month mortality and unfavorable outcome in a single center cohort of TBI patients in Malaysia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients with traumatic brain injury (mild, moderate, and severe) who were admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital from November 1, 2017, to January 31, 2019, were prospectively analyzed through a data collection sheet. The discriminatory power of the models was assessed as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test and Cox calibration regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 281 patients with significant TBI treated in a single neurosurgical center in Malaysia over a 2-year period. The overall observed 14-day mortality was 9.6%, a 6-month unfavorable outcome of 23.5%, and a 6-month mortality of 13.2%. Overall, both the CRASH and IMPACT models showed good discrimination with AUCs ranging from 0.88 to 0.94 and both models calibrating satisfactorily H-L GoF P>0.05 and calibration slopes >1.0 although IMPACT seemed to be slightly more superior compared to the CRASH model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CRASH and IMPACT prognostic models displayed satisfactory overall performance in our cohort of TBI patients, but further investigations on factors contributing to TBI outcomes and continuous updating on both models remain crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":16504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","volume":"67 3","pages":"367-373"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prediction of outcomes in traumatic brain injury: The IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models in a single neurosurgical center, Malaysia.\",\"authors\":\"Jafri M Abdullah,&nbsp;Zamzuri Idris,&nbsp;Abdul R Ghani,&nbsp;Mei S Lim\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05249-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has recently become a major concern for public health care and a socioeconomic burden internationally. Prognostic models are mathematical models developed from specific populations which are used to predict the mortality and unfavorable outcomes especially in trauma centers. Hence, we formulate a study to perform an external validation of the IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models; the CRASH model to predict 14-day mortality and 6-month unfavorable outcome and the IMPACT model to estimate 6-month mortality and unfavorable outcome in a single center cohort of TBI patients in Malaysia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients with traumatic brain injury (mild, moderate, and severe) who were admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital from November 1, 2017, to January 31, 2019, were prospectively analyzed through a data collection sheet. The discriminatory power of the models was assessed as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test and Cox calibration regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 281 patients with significant TBI treated in a single neurosurgical center in Malaysia over a 2-year period. The overall observed 14-day mortality was 9.6%, a 6-month unfavorable outcome of 23.5%, and a 6-month mortality of 13.2%. Overall, both the CRASH and IMPACT models showed good discrimination with AUCs ranging from 0.88 to 0.94 and both models calibrating satisfactorily H-L GoF P>0.05 and calibration slopes >1.0 although IMPACT seemed to be slightly more superior compared to the CRASH model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CRASH and IMPACT prognostic models displayed satisfactory overall performance in our cohort of TBI patients, but further investigations on factors contributing to TBI outcomes and continuous updating on both models remain crucial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurosurgical sciences\",\"volume\":\"67 3\",\"pages\":\"367-373\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurosurgical sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05249-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05249-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:创伤性脑损伤(TBI)最近已成为公共卫生保健的一个主要问题和国际社会经济负担。预后模型是从特定人群发展而来的数学模型,用于预测死亡率和不良结果,特别是在创伤中心。因此,我们制定了一项研究,对IMPACT和CRASH预测模型进行外部验证;CRASH模型用于预测14天死亡率和6个月不良预后,IMPACT模型用于估计马来西亚单中心TBI患者6个月死亡率和不良预后。方法:对2017年11月1日至2019年1月31日在伊丽莎白女王医院收治的所有外伤性脑损伤患者(轻、中、重度)进行前瞻性分析。以受试者工作特征曲线下面积评估模型的区分能力,采用Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L)拟合优度检验和Cox校准回归分析评估模型的校准。结果:我们分析了在马来西亚一个神经外科中心治疗的281例显著TBI患者,为期2年。观察到的14天总死亡率为9.6%,6个月不良结局为23.5%,6个月死亡率为13.2%。总体而言,CRASH和IMPACT模型都表现出良好的判别能力,auc范围在0.88 ~ 0.94之间,两种模型都能令人满意地校准H-L GoF P>0.05,校准斜率>1.0,尽管IMPACT模型似乎略优于CRASH模型。结论:CRASH和IMPACT预后模型在我们的TBI患者队列中显示出令人满意的总体表现,但对影响TBI结果的因素的进一步研究和对这两种模型的持续更新仍然至关重要。
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
Prediction of outcomes in traumatic brain injury: The IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models in a single neurosurgical center, Malaysia.

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has recently become a major concern for public health care and a socioeconomic burden internationally. Prognostic models are mathematical models developed from specific populations which are used to predict the mortality and unfavorable outcomes especially in trauma centers. Hence, we formulate a study to perform an external validation of the IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models; the CRASH model to predict 14-day mortality and 6-month unfavorable outcome and the IMPACT model to estimate 6-month mortality and unfavorable outcome in a single center cohort of TBI patients in Malaysia.

Methods: All patients with traumatic brain injury (mild, moderate, and severe) who were admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital from November 1, 2017, to January 31, 2019, were prospectively analyzed through a data collection sheet. The discriminatory power of the models was assessed as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test and Cox calibration regression analysis.

Results: We analyzed 281 patients with significant TBI treated in a single neurosurgical center in Malaysia over a 2-year period. The overall observed 14-day mortality was 9.6%, a 6-month unfavorable outcome of 23.5%, and a 6-month mortality of 13.2%. Overall, both the CRASH and IMPACT models showed good discrimination with AUCs ranging from 0.88 to 0.94 and both models calibrating satisfactorily H-L GoF P>0.05 and calibration slopes >1.0 although IMPACT seemed to be slightly more superior compared to the CRASH model.

Conclusions: The CRASH and IMPACT prognostic models displayed satisfactory overall performance in our cohort of TBI patients, but further investigations on factors contributing to TBI outcomes and continuous updating on both models remain crucial.

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
Journal of neurosurgical sciences
Journal of neurosurgical sciences CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences publishes scientific papers on neurosurgery and related subjects (electroencephalography, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropathology, stereotaxy, neuroanatomy, neuroradiology, etc.). Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of ditorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of intra-operative skull fixation techniques on cervical sagittal parameters. Normal pressure hydrocephalus treatment: is it time to rethink? Roxadustat protects oxidative stress and tissue injury in the brain induced by ischemic stroke via the HIF-1α/NRF2 axis. Follow-up neuroimaging after non-perimesencephalic, angiogram-negative subarachnoid hemorrhage. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: surgical outcomes in 65 patients, review of the literature and proposal for an anatomical and radiological classification.
×
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