CRASH和IMPACT模型预测颅脑外伤死亡率和不良结局的预后价值系统评价和荟萃分析。

IF 2.9 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Hamed Zarei, Mohammadhossein Vazirizadeh-Mahabadi, Hamzah Adel Ramawad, Arash Sarveazad, Mahmoud Yousefifard
{"title":"CRASH和IMPACT模型预测颅脑外伤死亡率和不良结局的预后价值系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Hamed Zarei,&nbsp;Mohammadhossein Vazirizadeh-Mahabadi,&nbsp;Hamzah Adel Ramawad,&nbsp;Arash Sarveazad,&nbsp;Mahmoud Yousefifard","doi":"10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head injury (CRASH) and the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) are two prognostic models frequently used in predicting the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury. There are ongoing debates about which of the two models has a better prognostic value. This study aims to compare the CRASH and IMPACT in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We performed a literature search using Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until August 17, 2022. After two independent researchers screened the articles, we included all the original articles comparing the prognostic value of IMPACT and CRASH models in patients with traumatic brain injury. The outcomes evaluated were mortality and unfavorable outcome. The data of the included articles were analyzed using STATA 17.0 statistical program, and we reported an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included the data from 16 studies. The analysis showed that the areas under the curve of the IMPACT core model and CRASH basic model do not differ in predicting the mortality of patients (OR=0.99; p=0.905) and their six-month unfavorable outcome (OR=1.01; p=0.719). Additionally, the CRASH CT model showed no difference from the IMPACT extended (OR=0.98; p=0.507) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.298) models in predicting the mortality of patients with traumatic brain injury. We also observed similar findings in the six-month unfavorable outcome, showing that the CRASH CT model does not differ from the IMPACT extended (OR=1.00; p=0.990) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.570) in predicting the unfavorable outcome in head trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low to very low level of evidence shows that IMPACT and CRASH models have similar values in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury. Since the discriminative power of the IMPACT Core and CRASH basic models is not different from the IMPACT extended, IMPACT Lab, and CRASH CT models, it may be possible to only use the core and basic models in examining the prognosis of patients with traumatic injuries to the brain.</p>","PeriodicalId":8146,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"e27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/66/bf/aaem-11-e27.PMC10008242.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostic Value of CRASH and IMPACT Models for Predicting Mortality and Unfavorable Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hamed Zarei,&nbsp;Mohammadhossein Vazirizadeh-Mahabadi,&nbsp;Hamzah Adel Ramawad,&nbsp;Arash Sarveazad,&nbsp;Mahmoud Yousefifard\",\"doi\":\"10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head injury (CRASH) and the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) are two prognostic models frequently used in predicting the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury. There are ongoing debates about which of the two models has a better prognostic value. This study aims to compare the CRASH and IMPACT in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We performed a literature search using Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until August 17, 2022. After two independent researchers screened the articles, we included all the original articles comparing the prognostic value of IMPACT and CRASH models in patients with traumatic brain injury. The outcomes evaluated were mortality and unfavorable outcome. The data of the included articles were analyzed using STATA 17.0 statistical program, and we reported an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included the data from 16 studies. The analysis showed that the areas under the curve of the IMPACT core model and CRASH basic model do not differ in predicting the mortality of patients (OR=0.99; p=0.905) and their six-month unfavorable outcome (OR=1.01; p=0.719). Additionally, the CRASH CT model showed no difference from the IMPACT extended (OR=0.98; p=0.507) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.298) models in predicting the mortality of patients with traumatic brain injury. We also observed similar findings in the six-month unfavorable outcome, showing that the CRASH CT model does not differ from the IMPACT extended (OR=1.00; p=0.990) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.570) in predicting the unfavorable outcome in head trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low to very low level of evidence shows that IMPACT and CRASH models have similar values in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury. Since the discriminative power of the IMPACT Core and CRASH basic models is not different from the IMPACT extended, IMPACT Lab, and CRASH CT models, it may be possible to only use the core and basic models in examining the prognosis of patients with traumatic injuries to the brain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"e27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/66/bf/aaem-11-e27.PMC10008242.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1885\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重大脑损伤后皮质类固醇随机化(CRASH)和国际临床试验预后与分析任务(IMPACT)是两种常用的预测外伤性脑损伤患者预后的预后模型。关于这两种模型中哪一种具有更好的预测价值的争论正在进行中。本研究旨在比较CRASH和IMPACT在预测外伤性脑损伤患者死亡率和不良预后方面的作用。方法:截至2022年8月17日,我们使用Medline(通过PubMed)、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science数据库进行文献检索。在两位独立研究人员筛选文章后,我们纳入了所有比较IMPACT和CRASH模型对创伤性脑损伤患者预后价值的原始文章。评估的结果是死亡率和不良结果。采用STATA 17.0统计程序对纳入文献的资料进行分析,采用95%可信区间(95% CI)的优势比(OR)进行比较。结果:我们纳入了16项研究的数据。分析表明,IMPACT核心模型和CRASH基本模型的曲线下面积在预测患者死亡率方面没有差异(OR=0.99;p=0.905)和6个月的不良结局(OR=1.01;p = 0.719)。此外,CRASH CT模型与IMPACT扩展模型没有差异(OR=0.98;p=0.507)和IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00;P =0.298)模型在预测颅脑损伤患者死亡率中的应用价值。我们在六个月的不利结果中也观察到类似的结果,表明CRASH CT模型与IMPACT扩展模型没有差异(OR=1.00;p=0.990)和IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00;P =0.570)预测颅脑外伤患者不良预后。结论:低至极低水平的证据表明,IMPACT和CRASH模型在预测外伤性脑损伤患者的死亡率和不良预后方面具有相似的价值。由于IMPACT Core和CRASH基本模型与IMPACT extended、IMPACT Lab和CRASH CT模型的判别能力并无差异,因此在检查颅脑创伤患者的预后时,可能只使用Core和基本模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Prognostic Value of CRASH and IMPACT Models for Predicting Mortality and Unfavorable Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Prognostic Value of CRASH and IMPACT Models for Predicting Mortality and Unfavorable Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Prognostic Value of CRASH and IMPACT Models for Predicting Mortality and Unfavorable Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Prognostic Value of CRASH and IMPACT Models for Predicting Mortality and Unfavorable Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: The Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head injury (CRASH) and the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) are two prognostic models frequently used in predicting the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury. There are ongoing debates about which of the two models has a better prognostic value. This study aims to compare the CRASH and IMPACT in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury.

Method: We performed a literature search using Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until August 17, 2022. After two independent researchers screened the articles, we included all the original articles comparing the prognostic value of IMPACT and CRASH models in patients with traumatic brain injury. The outcomes evaluated were mortality and unfavorable outcome. The data of the included articles were analyzed using STATA 17.0 statistical program, and we reported an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for comparison.

Results: We included the data from 16 studies. The analysis showed that the areas under the curve of the IMPACT core model and CRASH basic model do not differ in predicting the mortality of patients (OR=0.99; p=0.905) and their six-month unfavorable outcome (OR=1.01; p=0.719). Additionally, the CRASH CT model showed no difference from the IMPACT extended (OR=0.98; p=0.507) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.298) models in predicting the mortality of patients with traumatic brain injury. We also observed similar findings in the six-month unfavorable outcome, showing that the CRASH CT model does not differ from the IMPACT extended (OR=1.00; p=0.990) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.570) in predicting the unfavorable outcome in head trauma patients.

Conclusion: Low to very low level of evidence shows that IMPACT and CRASH models have similar values in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury. Since the discriminative power of the IMPACT Core and CRASH basic models is not different from the IMPACT extended, IMPACT Lab, and CRASH CT models, it may be possible to only use the core and basic models in examining the prognosis of patients with traumatic injuries to the brain.

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
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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