Observational approach to subjects with mild-tomoderate head injury and initial non-neurosurgical lesions

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry

Volumn 79, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1180-1185

  Fabbri, A ^a   Servadei, F ^b   Marchesini, G ^c   Stein, S C ^d   Vandelli, A ^a  

^a MORGAGNI PIERANTONI HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF PARMA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLASGOW COMA SCALE; HEAD INJURY; HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MODEL; NEUROSURGERY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK; SCORING SYSTEM; SURGICAL WARD; TELERADIOLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; BRAIN; COMORBIDITY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CRANIOCEREBRAL TRAUMA; GLASGOW COMA SCALE; HUMANS; INJURY SEVERITY SCORE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROSURGICAL PROCEDURES; OBSERVATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REGISTRIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 53149130210     PISSN: 00223050     EISSN: 1468330X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2007.135178     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, et al., for the CCC Study Group. The Canadian CT head rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001;357:1391-6.
2. Fabbri A, Servadei F, Marchesini G, et al. Prospective validation of a proposal for diagnosis and management of patients attending the emergency department for mild head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75:410-6.
3. Fearnside M, McDougall P. Moderate head injury: a system of neurotrauma care. Aust N Z Surg 1998;68:58-64.
4. Stein SC. Outcome from moderate had injury. In: Narayan R, Wilberg J, Povlishock J, eds, Neurotrauma, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996:755-65.
5. Oertel M, Kelly DF, McArthur D, et al. Progressive hemorrhage after head trauma: Predictors and consequences of the evolving injury. J Neurosurg 2002;96:109-16.
6. Patel NY, Hoyt DB, Nakaji P, et al. Traumatic brain injury: Patterns of failure of nonoperative management. J Trauma 2000;48:367-74.
7. Hesdorffer DC, Ghajar J, lacono L. Predictors of compliance with the evidencebased guidelines for traumatic brain injury care: a survey of United States trauma centers. J Trauma 2002;52:1202-9.
8. Mackenzie EJ. Review of evidence regarding trauma system effectiveness resulting from panel studies. J Trauma 1999;47:S34- S41.
9. Patel HC, Bouamra 0, Woodford M, et al. on behalf of the Trauma Audit and Research Network. Trends in head injury outcome from 1989 to 2003 and the effect of neurosurgical care: an observational study. Lancet 2005;366:1538-44.
10. Servadei F, Teasdale G, Merry G, on behalf of the Neurotraumatology Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies. Defining acute mild head injury in adults: a proposal based on prognostic factors, diagnosis and management. J Neurotrauma 2001;18:657-664.
11. Servadei F, Antonelli V, Mastrilli A, et al. Integration of image transmission into a protocol for head injurymanagement: a preliminary report. Br J Neurosurg 2002;16:36-42.
12. Marshall LF, Marshall SB, Klauber MR, et al. A new classification of head injury based on computerized tomography. J Neurosurg 1991;75(Suppl):S14-S20.
13. Servadei F, Murray GD, Penny K, et al. The value of the "worst" computed tomographic studies of moderate and severe head injury. Neurosurgery 2000;46:70-7.
14. Chalson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifyng prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-83.
15. Baker S, O'Neill B, Haddon W Jr. The Injury Severity Scale: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 1974;14:187-96.
16. Thornhill S, Teasdale GM, Murray GD, et al. Disability in young people and adults one year after head injury: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2000;320:1631-5.
17. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41-55.
18. Cavuto S, Bravi F, Grassi MC, et al. Propensity score for analysis of observational data: an introduction and an illustrative example. Drug Develop Res 2006;67:208-16.
19. D'Agostino RB Jr. Propensity scores in cardiovascular research. Circulation 2007;115:2340-3.
20. Dubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Statist Med 2007:26:20-36.
21. Ash AS, Shwartz M. Evaluating the performance of risk-adjustment methods: Dichotomous outcomes. In: Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes. 2nd edition, edited by lezzoni LI, Chicago: Health Administration Press, 1997.
22. Norusis MJ, SPSS Inc. SPSS/PC+. Base System and Advanced Statistics User's Guide. Version 13. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc., 2004.
23. Crimmins DWv, Palmer JD. Snapshot view of emergency neurosurgical head injury care in Great Britain and Ireland. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;68:8-13.
24. Servadei F, Nasi MT, Giuliani G, et al. CT prognostic factors in acute subdural haematomas: The value of the worst CT scan. Br J Neurosurg 2000:14:110-6.
25. Visca A, Faccani G, Massaro F, et al. Clinical and neuroimaging features of severely brain-injured patients treated in a neurosurgical unit compared with patients treated in peripheral non-neurosurgical hospitals. Br J Neurosurg 2006;20:82-6.
26. Teasdale GT, Pettigrew LEL, Wilson JTL, et al. Analysing outcome of treatment of severe head injury: a review and update on advancing use of the Glasgow outcome scale. J Neurotrauma 1998;15:587-97.