Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Brief reportSystematic Search and Review Procedures: Results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis
Section snippets
Methods
The review was conducted and reported in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.2 Our protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews3 on July 11, 2011, and was last updated on November 2, 2012 (registration no. CRD42011001410). We also published the detailed protocol.4
Results
A total of 92,022 citations were identified from the electronic databases, and 138 citations were identified from other sources (ie, reference lists and original ICoMP studies) (fig 1). After duplicates were removed, 77,914 titles remained. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria to titles and abstracts, 75,744 records were excluded and 2170 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 299 articles were determined to be eligible and were critically reviewed, and 101
Discussion
We critically reviewed 299 articles relating to the prognosis of MTBI in order to update the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force findings. We accepted 101 (34%) of these as scientifically admissible and based our findings on them.
We believe our review has several strengths. The investigative team includes international experts on clinical and methodologic issues in the field of traumatic brain injury. We developed a comprehensive and sensitive search strategy. We performed in-depth reviews of
Conclusions
We reviewed 299 articles and accepted 101 (34%), which form the basis of our findings. These consist of 4 RCTs, 1 nonrandomized experiment, 88 cohort studies (8 phase III, 46 phase II, 34 phase I), and 8 case-control studies (2 phase III, 5 phase II, 1 phase I). More methodologically rigorous studies are needed to better understand the prognosis after MTBI because very few confirmatory (phase III) studies were identified. Our results are presented in 10 separate articles in this supplement. We
Acknowledgments
We thank the other members of ICoMP: Jean-Luc af Geijerstam, MD, PhD, Jörgen Borg, MD, PhD, Eleanor Boyle, PhD, Linda J. Carroll, PhD, Victor G. Coronado, MD, MPH, Alison K. Godbolt, MBChB, MD, Jan Hartvigsen, DC, PhD, Lena W. Holm, DrMedSc, Ryan Hung, MD, MSc, Michelle Keightley, PhD, Vicki L. Kristman, PhD, Connie Marras, MD, PhD, Catharina Nygren-de Boussard, MD, PhD, Peter Rumney, MD, and Britt-Marie Stålnacke, MD, PhD. We also thank Panos Lambiris, MSc, Information Scientist, University
References (14)
- et al.
Population-based, inception cohort study of the incidence, course, and prognosis of mild traumatic brain injury after motor vehicle collisions
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(2014) - et al.
Mild traumatic brain injury after motor vehicle collisions: what are the symptoms and who treats them? A population-based 1-year inception cohort study
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(2014) - et al.
Health care utilization of workers' compensation claimants associated with mild traumatic brain injury: a historical population-based cohort study of workers injured in 1997-1998
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(2014) Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis
J Clin Epidemiol
(1995)- et al.
Tratamiento del traumatismo craneoencefalico aislado leve. Estudio multicentrico
An Pediatr
(2006) - et al.
Methodological issues and research recommendations for prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis
Arch Phys Med Rehab
(2014) - et al.
Prognosis for mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
J Rehabil Med
(2004)
Cited by (28)
Neuropsychological Evaluation in Traumatic Brain Injury
2024, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North AmericaPrognostication in neurology
2022, Handbook of Clinical NeurologyCitation Excerpt :Prognosis research lags behind advances in treatment and diagnosis (Hemingway, 2006). Research is lacking in both quantity and quality (Post et al., 2007; Wassenaar et al., 2013; Broadley et al., 2019), and most studies are exploratory (Cancelliere et al., 2014). Even the best clinical prediction models carry a high degree of uncertainty (Yourman et al., 2012).
Saliva biomarkers of traumatic brain injury
2020, Biomarkers for Traumatic Brain InjuryInvestigating the Variability in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Definitions: A Prospective Cohort Study
2018, Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationIs sex an indicator of prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury: A systematic analysis of the findings of the world health organization collaborating centre task force on mild traumatic brain injury and the international collaboration on mild traumatic brain injury prognosis
2016, Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSystematic review of the prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury in adults: Cognitive, psychiatric, and mortality outcomes: Results of the international collaboration on mild traumatic brain injury prognosis
2014, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Supported by the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation (grant no. 2010-ABI-MTBIWHO-871).
The funder was not involved in the design or preparation of the study protocol or in the management of the project, analysis or interpretation of data, or the preparation of the final article.
No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has conferred or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.
The findings and conclusions in this research are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the official views or policies of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or any agency of the United States government. Inclusion of individuals, programs, or organizations in this article does not constitute endorsement by the United States government.