Cited by 291Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics

Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury: past experience and current developments

Open access
Maas, Andrew I.R., Roozenbeek, Bob, Manley, Geoffrey T.·2010·Neurotherapeutics

Abstract

In this article, we review past and current experience in clinical trials of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), we discuss limitations and challenges, and we summarize current directions. The focus is on severe and moderate TBIs. A systematic literature search of the years from 1980 to 2009 revealed 27 large phase III trials in TBI; we were aware of a further 6 unpublished trials. Analysis of these 33 trials yielded interesting observations: There was a peak incidence of trial initiations that occurred in the mid-1990s with a sharp decline during the period from 2000 to 2004. Most trials that reported a significant treatment effect were studies on a therapeutic strategy (e.g., decompressive craniectomy, hypothermia), and these were single-center studies. Increasingly, studies have been shifting toward the Far East. The currently existing trial registries permit insight into ongoing or recently conducted trials. Compared with the past decade, the number of studies on neuroprotective agents taken forward into efficacy-oriented studies is low. In contrast, the number of studies on therapeutic strategies appears to be increasing again. The disappointing results in trials on neuroprotective agents in TBI have led to a critical reappraisal of clinical trial methodology. This has resulted in recommendations for preclinical workup and has triggered extensive analysis on approaches to improve the design and analysis of clinical trials in TBI. An interagency initiative toward standardization on selection and coding of data elements across the broad spectrum of TBI is ongoing, and will facilitate comparison of research findings across studies and encourage high-quality meta-analysis of individual patient data in the future.

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.2009.10.022

Cites

43 of 43 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • More than 30 phase-III clinical trials have failed to improve secondary injury outcome measures after TBI despite preclinical evidence for successful pharmacologic intervention.

    “Despite preclinical studies providing evidence for successful pharmacologic intervention, more than 30 phase-III clinical trials have failed to improve secondary injury outcome measures after TBI (35–37).”

    From The Inflammatory Continuum of Traumatic Brain Injury and Alzheimer’s Disease (2018) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Introduction reports encouraging preclinical results and says no multicenter phase III trial of a neuroprotective agent had convincingly shown benefit. But the trial-results discussion reports significant effects in 7 of 10 trials of therapeutic strategies and 3 of 23 trials of neuroprotective agents; the paper does not say that more than 30 trials failed. Its reviewed trials primarily measured clinical outcome, not specifically secondary-injury outcome measures. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Temkin NR, Anderson GD, Winn HR, et al. Magnesium sulfate for neuroprotection after traumatic brain injury: a randomized con- trolled study. Lancet Neurol 2007;6:29 -38.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maas, A. I. R., Roozenbeek, B., & Manley, G. T.
Affiliations
  • Antwerp University Hospital (BE)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Maas, Andrew I.R.
Venue
Neurotherapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
115-126
ISSN
1878-7479 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112462557
Cited by
291
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 28
FWCI
2.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurotherapeutics (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, clinical trials, neuroprotective agents, decompressive craniectomy, therapeutic hypothermia, clinical trial registries, clinical trial design, data element standardization, individual patient data meta-analysis
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans

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