Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. To better understand its impact on various outcome domains, this study pursues the following: (1)... Show moreTraumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. To better understand its impact on various outcome domains, this study pursues the following: (1) longitudinal outcome assessments at three, six, and twelve months post-injury; (2) an evaluation of sociodemographic, premorbid, and injury-related factors, and functional recovery contributing to worsening or improving outcomes after TBI. Using patient-reported outcome measures, recuperation trends after TBI were identified by applying Multivariate Latent Class Mixed Models (MLCMM). Instruments were grouped into TBI-specific and generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL; QOLIBRI-OS, SF-12v2), and psychological and post-concussion symptoms (GAD-7, PHQ-9, PCL-5, RPQ). Multinomial logistic regressions were carried out to identify contributing factors. For both outcome sets, the four-class solution provided the best match between goodness of fit indices and meaningful clinical interpretability. Both models revealed similar trajectory classes: stable good health status (HRQoL: n = 1944; symptoms: n = 1963), persistent health impairments (HRQoL: n = 442; symptoms: n = 179), improving health status (HRQoL: n = 83; symptoms: n = 243), and deteriorating health status (HRQoL: n = 86; symptoms: n = 170). Compared to individuals with stable good health status, the other groups were more likely to have a lower functional recovery status at three months after TBI (i.e., the GOSE), psychological problems, and a lower educational attainment. Outcome trajectories after TBI show clearly distinguishable patterns which are reproducible across different measures. Individuals characterized by persistent health impairments and deterioration require special attention and long-term clinical monitoring and therapy. Show less
Background: Following traumatic brain injury (TBI), the clinical focus is often on disability. However, patients' perceptions of well-being can be discordant with their disability level, referred... Show moreBackground: Following traumatic brain injury (TBI), the clinical focus is often on disability. However, patients' perceptions of well-being can be discordant with their disability level, referred to as the 'disability paradox'. We aimed to examine the relationship between disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following TBI, while taking variation in personal, injury-related and environment factors into account. Methods: We used data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury study. Disability was assessed 6 months post-injury by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE). HRQoL was assessed by the SF-12v2 physical and mental component summary scores and the Quality of Life after Traumatic Brain Injury overall scale. We examined mean total and domain HRQoL scores by GOSE. We quantified variance in HRQoL explained by GOSE, personal, injury-related and environment factors with multivariable regression. Results: Six-month outcome assessments were completed in 2075 patients, of whom 78% had mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15). Patients with severe disability had higher HRQoL than expected on the basis of GOSE alone, particularly after mild TBI. Up to 50% of patients with severe disability reported HRQoL scores within the normative range. GOSE, personal, injury-related and environment factors explained a limited amount of variance in HRQoL (up to 29%). Conclusion: Contrary to the idea that discrepancies are unusual, many patients with poor functional outcomes reported well-being that was at or above the boundary considered satisfactory for the normative sample. These findings challenge the idea that satisfactory HRQoL in patients with disability should be described as 'paradoxical' and question common views of what constitutes 'unfavourable' outcome. Show less
Steinbuechel, N. von; Rauen, K.; Krenz, U.; Wu, Y.J.; Covic, A.; Plass, A.M.; ... ; Linguistic Validation Grp CENTER 2021
Assessing outcomes in multinational studies on traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses major challenges and requires relevant instruments in languages other than English. Of the 19 outcome instruments... Show moreAssessing outcomes in multinational studies on traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses major challenges and requires relevant instruments in languages other than English. Of the 19 outcome instruments selected for use in the observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study, 17 measures lacked translations in at least one target language. To fill this gap, we aimed to develop well-translated linguistically and psychometrically validated instruments. We performed translations and linguistic validations of patient-reported measures (PROMs), clinician-reported (ClinRO), and performance-based (PerfO) outcome instruments, using forward and backward translations, reconciliations, cognitive debriefings with up to 10 participants, iterative revisions, and international harmonization with input from over 150 international collaborators. In total, 237 translations and 211 linguistic validations were carried out in up to 20 languages. Translations were evaluated at the linguistic and cultural level by coding changes when the original versions are compared with subsequent translation steps, using the output of cognitive debriefings, and using comprehension rates. The average comprehension rate per instrument varied from 88% to 98%, indicating a good quality of the translations. These outcome instruments provide a solid basis for future TBI research and clinical practice and allow the aggregation and analysis of data across different countries and languages. Show less
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) may lead to impairments in various outcome domains. Since most instruments assessing these are only available in a limited number of languages, psychometrically... Show moreTraumatic brain injury (TBI) may lead to impairments in various outcome domains. Since most instruments assessing these are only available in a limited number of languages, psychometrically validated translations are important for research and clinical practice. Thus, our aim was to investigate the psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) applied in the CENTER-TBI study. The study sample comprised individuals who filled in the six-months assessments (GAD-7, PHQ-9, PCL-5, RPQ, QOLIBRI/-OS, SF-36v2/-12v2). Classical psychometric characteristics were investigated and compared with those of the original English versions. The reliability was satisfactory to excellent; the instruments were comparable to each other and to the original versions. Validity analyses demonstrated medium to high correlations with well-established measures. The original factor structure was replicated by all the translations, except for the RPQ, SF-36v2/-12v2 and some language samples for the PCL-5, most probably due to the factor structure of the original instruments. The translation of one to two items of the PHQ-9, RPQ, PCL-5, and QOLIBRI in three languages could be improved in the future to enhance scoring and application at the individual level. Researchers and clinicians now have access to reliable and valid instruments to improve outcome assessment after TBI in national and international health care. Show less
Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are online summaries of health care research that are updated as new research becomes available. This new development in evidence synthesis is being trialled as... Show moreLiving systematic reviews (LSRs) are online summaries of health care research that are updated as new research becomes available. This new development in evidence synthesis is being trialled as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project. We will develop and sustain an international TBI knowledge community that maintains up-to-date, high quality LSRs of the current state of knowledge in the most important questions in TBI. Automatic search updates will be run three-monthly, and newly identified studies incorporated into the review. Review teams will seek to publish journal updates at regular intervals, with abridged updates available more frequently online. Future project stages include the integration of LSR and other study findings into "living" clinical practice guidance. It is hoped these efforts will go some way to bridging current temporal disconnects between evidence, guidelines, and practice in TBI. Show less
Loss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month... Show moreLoss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month outcomes has been to use the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The purpose of the current study was to compare the performance of model-based single-imputation methods with that of the LOCF approach. We hypothesized that model-based methods would perform better as they potentially make better use of available outcome data. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study (n = 4509) included longitudinal outcome collection at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-injury; a total of 8185 Glasgow Outcome Scale extended (GOSe) observations were included in the database. We compared single imputation of 6-month outcomes using LOCF, a multiple imputation (MI) panel imputation, a mixed-effect model, a Gaussian process regression, and a multi-state model. Model performance was assessed via cross-validation on the subset of individuals with a valid GOSe value within 180 +/- 14 days post-injury (n = 1083). All models were fit on the entire available data after removing the 180 +/- 14 days post-injury observations from the respective test fold. The LOCF method showed lower accuracy (i.e., poorer agreement between imputed and observed values) than model-based methods of imputation, and showed a strong negative bias (i.e., it imputed lower than observed outcomes). Accuracy and bias for the model-based approaches were similar to one another, with the multi-state model having the best overall performance. All methods of imputation showed variation across different outcome categories, with better performance for more frequent outcomes. We conclude that model-based methods of single imputation have substantial performance advantages over LOCF, in addition to providing more complete outcome data. Show less
Wijk, R.P.J. van; Dijck, J.T.J.M. van; Timmers, M.; Veen, E. van; Citerio, G.; Lingsma, H.F.; ... ; CENTER-TB1 Investigators 2020
Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in... Show morePurpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice.Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries.Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N 426;20%) and deferred consent (N 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%).Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is currently classified as mild, moderate, or severe TBI by trichotomizing the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). We aimed to explore directions for a more refined... Show moreTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is currently classified as mild, moderate, or severe TBI by trichotomizing the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). We aimed to explore directions for a more refined multidimensional classification system. For that purpose, we performed a hypothesis-free cluster analysis in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI) database: a European all-severity TBI cohort (n = 4509). The first building block consisted of key imaging characteristics, summarized using principal component analysis from 12 imaging characteristics. The other building blocks were demographics, clinical severity, secondary insults, and cause of injury. With these building blocks, the patients were clustered into four groups. We applied bootstrap resampling with replacement to study the stability of cluster allocation. The characteristics that predominantly defined the clusters were injury cause, major extracranial injury, and GCS. The clusters consisted of 1451, 1534, 1006, and 518 patients, respectively. The clustering method was quite stable: the proportion of patients staying in one cluster after resampling and reclustering was 97.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.6-99.9%). These clusters characterized groups of patients with different functional outcomes: from mild to severe, 12%, 19%, 36%, and 58% of patients had unfavorable 6 month outcome. Compared with the mild and the upper intermediate cluster, the lower intermediate and the severe cluster received more key interventions. To conclude, four types of TBI patients may be defined by injury mechanism, presence of major extracranial injury and GCS. Describing patients according to these three characteristics could potentially capture differences in etiology and care pathways better than with GCS only. Show less
Huijben, J.A.; Wiegers, E.J.A.; Ercole, A.; Keizer, N.F. de; Maas, A.I.R.; Steyerberg, E.W.; ... ; Jagt, M. van der 2020
Background The aim of this study is to validate a previously published consensus-based quality indicator set for the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at intensive care units... Show moreBackground The aim of this study is to validate a previously published consensus-based quality indicator set for the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe and to study its potential for quality measurement and improvement. Methods Our analysis was based on 2006 adult patients admitted to 54 ICUs between 2014 and 2018, enrolled in the CENTER-TBI study. Indicator scores were calculated as percentage adherence for structure and process indicators and as event rates or median scores for outcome indicators. Feasibility was quantified by the completeness of the variables. Discriminability was determined by the between-centre variation, estimated with a random effect regression model adjusted for case-mix severity and quantified by the median odds ratio (MOR). Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was determined by the median number of events per centre, using a cut-off of 10. Results A total of 26/42 indicators could be calculated from the CENTER-TBI database. Most quality indicators proved feasible to obtain with more than 70% completeness. Sub-optimal adherence was found for most quality indicators, ranging from 26 to 93% and 20 to 99% for structure and process indicators. Significant (p < 0.001) between-centre variation was found in seven process and five outcome indicators with MORs ranging from 1.51 to 4.14. Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was generally high; five out of seven had less than 10 events per centre. Conclusions Overall, nine structures, five processes, but none of the outcome indicators showed potential for quality improvement purposes for TBI patients in the ICU. Future research should focus on implementation efforts and continuous reevaluation of quality indicators. Show less
Introduction Controversy exists about the optimal treatment for patients with a traumatic acute subdural haematoma (ASDH) and an intracerebral haematoma/contusion (t-ICH). Treatment varies largely... Show moreIntroduction Controversy exists about the optimal treatment for patients with a traumatic acute subdural haematoma (ASDH) and an intracerebral haematoma/contusion (t-ICH). Treatment varies largely between different regions. The effect of this practice variation on patient outcome is unknown. Here, we present the protocol for a prospective multicentre observational study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of different treatment strategies in patients with ASDH and/or t-ICH. Specifically, the aims are to compare (1) an acute surgical approach to an expectant approach and (2) craniotomy to decompressive craniectomy when evacuating the haematoma.Methods and analysis Patients presenting to the emergency room with an ASDH and/or an t-ICH are eligible for inclusion. Standardised prospective data on patient and injury characteristics, treatment and outcome will be collected on 1000 ASDH and 750 t-ICH patients in 60-70 centres within two multicentre prospective observational cohort studies: the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) and Neurotraumatology Quality Registry (Net-QuRe). The interventions of interest are acute surgery, defined as surgery directly after the first CT at presentation versus late or no surgery and craniotomy versus decompressive craniectomy. The primary outcome measure is the Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures include in-hospital mortality, quality of life and neuropsychological tests. In the primary analysis, the effect of treatment preference (eg, proportion of patients in which the intervention under study is preferred) per hospital will be analysed with random effects ordinal regression models, adjusted for casemix and stratified by study. Such a hospital-level approach reduces confounding by the indication. Sensitivity analyses will include propensity score matching, with treatment defined on patient level. This study is designed to determine the best acute management strategy for ASDH and t-ICH by exploiting the existing between-hospital variability in surgical management.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained in all participating countries. Results of surgical management of ASDH and t-ICH/contusion will separately be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Show less
