Validation of the GCS-Pupil Scale in Traumatic Brain Injury: Incremental Prognostic Value of Pupillary Reactivity with GCS in the Prospective Observational Cohorts CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Rick J G Vreeburg, Florian D van Leeuwen, Geoffrey T Manley, John K Yue, Paul M Brennan, Xiaoying Sun, Sonia Jain, Thomas A van Essen, Wilco C Peul, Andrew I R Maas, David K Menon, Ewout W Steyerberg
{"title":"Validation of the GCS-Pupil Scale in Traumatic Brain Injury: Incremental Prognostic Value of Pupillary Reactivity with GCS in the Prospective Observational Cohorts CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI.","authors":"Rick J G Vreeburg, Florian D van Leeuwen, Geoffrey T Manley, John K Yue, Paul M Brennan, Xiaoying Sun, Sonia Jain, Thomas A van Essen, Wilco C Peul, Andrew I R Maas, David K Menon, Ewout W Steyerberg","doi":"10.1089/neu.2024.0458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare the incremental prognostic value of pupillary reactivity captured as part of the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils (GCS-P) score or added as separate variable to the GCS+P, in traumatic brain injury (TBI). We analyzed patients enrolled between 2014 and 2018 in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI, <i>n</i> = 3521) and the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI, <i>n</i> = 1439) cohorts. Logistic regression was utilized to quantify the prognostic performances of GCS-P (GCS minus number of unreactive pupils) and GCS+P versus GCS alone according to Nagelkerke's <i>R</i><sup>2</sup>. End-points were mortality and unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score 1-4) at 6 month post-injury. We estimated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with bootstrap resampling to summarize the improvement in prognostic capability. In a meta-analysis of CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI, GCS as a linear score had a <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> of 25% (95% CI 19-31%) for mortality and 33% (4-41%) for unfavorable outcome. Pupillary reactivity as a separate variable improved the <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> by an absolute value of 6% (4.0-7.7%) and 2% (1.2-3.0%) for mortality and unfavorable outcome, respectively, while comparatively half of this improvement was captured by the GCS-P score (3% [2.1-3.3%], 1% [1-1.7%], respectively). GCS-P showed a stronger association with 6-month outcome after TBI than GCS alone and provides a single integrated score. However, this comes at a loss of clinical and prognostic information compared with GCS+P. For prognostic models, inclusion of GCS and pupillary reactivity as separate factors may be preferable to using a GCS-P summary score.</p>","PeriodicalId":16512,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurotrauma","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurotrauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2024.0458","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare the incremental prognostic value of pupillary reactivity captured as part of the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils (GCS-P) score or added as separate variable to the GCS+P, in traumatic brain injury (TBI). 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. Logistic regression was utilized to quantify the prognostic performances of GCS-P (GCS minus number of unreactive pupils) and GCS+P versus GCS alone according to Nagelkerke's R2. End-points were mortality and unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score 1-4) at 6 month post-injury. We estimated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with bootstrap resampling to summarize the improvement in prognostic capability. In a meta-analysis of CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI, GCS as a linear score had a R2 of 25% (95% CI 19-31%) for mortality and 33% (4-41%) for unfavorable outcome. Pupillary reactivity as a separate variable improved the R2 by an absolute value of 6% (4.0-7.7%) and 2% (1.2-3.0%) for mortality and unfavorable outcome, respectively, while comparatively half of this improvement was captured by the GCS-P score (3% [2.1-3.3%], 1% [1-1.7%], respectively). GCS-P showed a stronger association with 6-month outcome after TBI than GCS alone and provides a single integrated score. However, this comes at a loss of clinical and prognostic information compared with GCS+P. For prognostic models, inclusion of GCS and pupillary reactivity as separate factors may be preferable to using a GCS-P summary score.

创伤性脑损伤中 GCS-瞳孔量表的验证:前瞻性观察队列 CENTER-TBI 和 TRACK-TBI 中瞳孔反应性与 GCS 的增量预后价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurotrauma
Journal of neurotrauma 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
233
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Neurotrauma is the flagship, peer-reviewed publication for reporting on the latest advances in both the clinical and laboratory investigation of traumatic brain and spinal cord injury. The Journal focuses on the basic pathobiology of injury to the central nervous system, while considering preclinical and clinical trials targeted at improving both the early management and long-term care and recovery of traumatically injured patients. This is the essential journal publishing cutting-edge basic and translational research in traumatically injured human and animal studies, with emphasis on neurodegenerative disease research linked to CNS trauma.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信