Cited by 157Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

IMPACT Recommendations for Improving the Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Open access
Maas, Andrew I.R., Steyerberg, Ewout W., Marmarou, Anthony, McHugh, Gillian S., Lingsma, Hester F., Butcher, Isabella, Lu, Juan, Weir, James +2 more·2010·Neurotherapeutics

Abstract

Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) pose complex methodological challenges, largely related to the heterogeneity of the population. The International Mission on Prognosis and Clinical Trial Design in TBI study group has explored approaches for dealing with this heterogeneity with the aim to optimize clinical trials in TBI. Extensive prognostic analyses and simulation studies were conducted on individual patient data from eight trials and three observational studies. Here, we integrate the results of these studies into the International Mission on Prognosis and Clinical Trial Design in TBI recommendations for design and analysis of trials in TBI: Details of the major baseline prognostic characteristics should be provided in every report on a TBI study; in trials they should be differentiated per treatment group. We also advocate the reporting of the baseline prognostic risk as determined by validated prognostic models. Inclusion criteria should be as broad as is compatible with the current understanding of the mechanisms of action of the intervention being evaluated. This will maximize recruitment rates and enhance the generalizability of the results. The statistical analysis should incorporate prespecified covariate adjustment to mitigate the effects of the heterogeneity. The statistical analysis should use an ordinal approach, based on either sliding dichotomy or proportional odds methodology. Broad inclusion criteria, prespecified covariate adjustment, and an ordinal analysis will promote an efficient trial, yielding gains in statistical efficiency of more than 40%. This corresponds to being able to detect a 7% treatment effect with the same number of patients needed to demonstrate a 10% difference with an unadjusted analysis based on the dichotomized Glasgow outcome scale.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nurt.2009.10.020

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maas, A. I. R., Steyerberg, E. W., Marmarou, A., McHugh, G. S., Lingsma, H. F., Butcher, I., Lu, J., Weir, J., Roozenbeek, B., & Murray, G. D.
Affiliations
  • Antwerp University Hospital (BE)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center (US)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Maas, Andrew I.R.
Venue
Neurotherapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
127-134
ISSN
1878-7479 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094741545
Cited by
157
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurotherapeutics (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 NS)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS042691)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, clinical trial design, prognostic heterogeneity, prognostic model, individual patient data, covariate adjustment, ordinal analysis, proportional odds model, Glasgow Outcome Scale, trial inclusion criteria, statistical power, generalizability of trial results
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, International Cooperation, Prognosis, Severity of Illness Index

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review