Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic Value of Computerized Tomography Scan Characteristics in Traumatic Brain Injury: Results from The IMPACT Study

Maas, Andrew I.R., Steyerberg, Ewout W., Butcher, Isabella, Dammers, Ruben, Lu, Juan, Marmarou, Anthony, Mushkudiani, Nino A., McHugh, Gillian S., Murray, Gordon D.·2007·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

Computerized tomography (CT) scanning provides an objective assessment of the structural damage to the brain following traumatic brain injury (TBI). We aimed to describe and quantify the relationship between CT characteristics and 6-month outcome, assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). Individual patient data from the IMPACT database were available on CT classification (N = 5209), status of basal cisterns ( N = 3861), shift ( N = 4698), traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (tSAH) ( N = 7407), and intracranial lesions ( N = 7613). We used binary logistic and proportional odds regression for prognostic analyses. The CT classification was strongly related to outcome, with worst outcome for patients with diffuse injuries in CT class III (swelling; OR 2.50; CI 2.09-3.0) or CT class IV (shift; OR 3.03; CI 2.12-4.35). The prognosis in patients with mass lesions was better for patients with an epidural hematoma (OR 0.64; CI 0.56-0.72) and poorer for an acute subdural hematoma (OR 2.14; CI 1.87-2.45). Partial obliteration of the basal cisterns (OR 2.45; CI 1.88-3.20), tSAH (OR 2.64; CI 2.42-2.89), or midline shift (1-5 mm-OR 1.36; CI 1.09-1.68); >5 mm-OR 2.20; CI 1.64-2.96) were strongly related to poorer outcome. Discrepancies were found between the scoring of basal cisterns/shift and the CT classification, indicating observer variation. These were less marked in studies that had used a central review process. Multivariable analysis indicated that individual CT characteristics added substantially to the prognostic value of the CT classification alone. We conclude that both the CT classification and individual CT characteristics are important predictors of outcome in TBI. For clinical trials, a central review process is advocated to minimize observer variability in CT assessment.

Overview

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 · 10.1089/neu.2006.0033

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 289

Metadata

Authors
Maas, A. I. R., Steyerberg, E. W., Butcher, I., Dammers, R., Lu, J., Marmarou, A., Mushkudiani, N. A., McHugh, G. S., & Murray, G. D.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2007-02
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
303-314
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W2093825936
Cited by
289
References
2
FWCI
9.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognostic Value of Computerized Tomography Scan Characteristics in Traumatic Brain Injury: Results from The IMPACT Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/neu.2006.0033
The paper
Maas, A. I. R., Steyerberg, E. W., Butcher, I., Dammers, R., Lu, J., Marmarou, A., Mushkudiani, N. A., McHugh, G. S., & Murray, G. D. (2007). Prognostic Value of Computerized Tomography Scan Characteristics in Traumatic Brain Injury: Results from The IMPACT Study. Journal of Neurotrauma. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2006.0033

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.