Performance of IMPACT, CRASH and Nijmegen models in predicting six month outcome of patients with severe or moderate TBI: an external validation study

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Ewout W Steyerberg²  Martin Rusnak¹  Walter Mauritz¹  Daan Nieboer²  Hester F Lingsma²  Marek Majdan¹ 

[1] International Neurotrauma Research organization (INRO), Moelkergasse 4/3, Vienna A-1080, Austria;Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 50, Rotterdam 3015 CE, the Netherlands

关键词: Outcome prediction;    Traumatic brain injury;    External validation;    Prognostic model;   

Others  :  1151686
DOI  :  10.1186/s13049-014-0068-9

 received in 2014-07-22, accepted in 2014-11-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

External validation on different TBI populations is important in order to assess the generalizability of prognostic models to different settings. We aimed to externally validate recently developed models for prediction of six month unfavourable outcome and six month mortality.

Methods

The International Neurotrauma Research Organization – Prehospital dataset (INRO-PH) was collected within an observational study between 2009-2012 in Austria and includes 778 patients with TBI of GCS < = 12. Three sets of prognostic models were externally validated: the IMPACT core and extended models, CRASH basic models and the Nijmegen models developed by Jacobs et al – all for prediction of six month unfavourable outcome and six month mortality. The external validity of the models was assessed by discrimination (Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve, AUC) and calibration (calibration statistics and plots).

Results

Median age in the validation cohort was 50 years and 44% had an admission GSC motor score of 1-3. Six-month mortality was 27%. Mortality could better be predicted (AUCs around 0.85) than unfavourable outcome (AUCs around 0.80). Calibration plots showed that the observed outcomes were systematically better than was predicted for all models considered. The best performance was noted for the original Nijmegen model, but refitting led to similar performance for the IMPACT Extended, CRASH Basic, and Nijmegen models.

Conclusions

In conclusion, all the prognostic models we validated in this study possess good discriminative ability for prediction of six month outcome in patients with moderate or severe TBI but outcomes were systemically better than predicted. After adjustment for this under prediction in locally adapted models, these may well be used for recent TBI patients.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Majdan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Maas AI, Stocchetti N, Bullock R: Moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in adults. Lancet Neurol 2008, 7:728-741.
• [2]Mushkudiani NA, Hukkelhoven CW, Hernandez AV, Murray GD, Choi SC, Maas AI, Steyerberg EW: A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:331-343.
• [3]Steyerberg EW: Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. Springer, New York; 2009.
• [4]Perel P, Edwards P, Wentz R, Roberts I: Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006, 6:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Maas AI, Marmarou A, Murray GD, Teasdale SG, Steyerberg EW: Prognosis and clinical trial design in traumatic brain injury: the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma 2007, 24:232-238.
• [6]Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T, Edwards P, Komolafe E, Poccock S, Roberts I, Shakur H, Steyerberg E, Yutthakasemsunt S: Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ 2008, 336:425-429.
• [7]Lingsma H, Andriessen TM, Haitsema I, Horn J, van der Naalt J, Franschman G, Maas AI, Vos PE, Steyerberg EW: Prognosis in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the IMPACT models and the role of extracranial injuries. Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013, 74:639-646.
• [8]Panczykowski DM, Puccio AM, Scruggs BJ, Bauer JS, Hricik AJ, Beers SR, Okonkwo DO: Prospective independent validation of IMPACT modeling as a prognostic tool in severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2012, 29:47-52.
• [9]Raj R, Siironen J, Kivisaari R, Hernesniemi J, Tanskanen P, Handolin L, Skrifvars MB: External validation of the international mission for prognosis and analysis of clinical trials model and the role of markers of coagulation. Neurosurgery 2013, 73:305-311.
• [10]Roozenbeek B, Lingsma HF, Lecky FE, Lu J, Weir J, Butcher I, McHugh GS, Murray GD, Perel P, Maas AI, Steyerberg EW: Prediction of outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models. Crit Care Med 2012, 40:1609-1617.
• [11]Jacobs B, Beems T, van der Vliet TM, van Vugt AB, Hoedemaekers C, Horn J, Franschman G, Haitsma I, van der Naalt J, Andriessen TM, Borm GF, Vos PE: Outcome prediction in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a focus on computed tomography variables. Neurocrit Care 2013, 19:79-89.
• [12]Copes WS, Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Lawnick MM, Gann DS, Gennarelli T, MacKenzie E, Schwaitzberg S: Progress in characterizing anatomic injury. J Trauma 1990, 30:1200-1207.
• [13]Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, Butcher I, Lu J, McHugh GS, Murray GD, Marmarou A, Roberts I, Habbema JD, Maas AI: Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med 2008, 5:e165. discussion e165
• [14]Franschman G, Verburg N, Brens-Heldens V, Andriessen TM, Van der Naalt J, Peerdeman SM, Valk JP, Hoogerwerf N, Greuters S, Schober P, Vos PE, Christiaans HMT, Boer C: Effects of physician-based emergency medical service dispatch in severe traumatic brain injury on prehospital run time. Injury 2012, 43:1838-1842.
• [15]Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, Muller M: pROC: an open-source package for R and S + to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:77. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Andriessen TM, Horn J, Franschman G, van der Naalt J, Haitsma I, Jacobs B, Steyerberg EW, Vos PE: Epidemiology, severity classification, and outcome of moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a prospective multicenter study. J Neurotrauma 2011, 28:2019-2031.
• [17]Roozenbeek B, Maas AI, Menon DK: Changing patterns in the epidemiology of traumatic brain injury. Nat Rev Neurol 2013, 9:231-236.
• [18]Stein SC, Georgoff P, Meghan S, Mizra K, Sonnad SS: 150 years of treating severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of progress in mortality. J Neurotrauma 2010, 27:1343-1353.
• [19]Maegele M: Coagulopathy after traumatic brain injury: incidence, pathogenesis, and treatment options. Transfusion 2013, 53(Suppl 1):28S-37S.
• [20]Steyerberg EW, Borsboom GJ, van Houwelingen HC, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD: Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat Med 2004, 23:2567-2586.
• [21][http://www.crash.lshtm.ac.uk/Risk%20calculator/index.html] webcite CRASH Head Injury Prognostic Models: web based calculator. []