The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Classification of Traumatic Brain Injury for Targeted Therapies
Open accessAbstract
The heterogeneity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered one of the most significant barriers to finding effective therapeutic interventions. In October, 2007, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, with support from the Brain Injury Association of America, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research, convened a workshop to outline the steps needed to develop a reliable, efficient and valid classification system for TBI that could be used to link specific patterns of brain and neurovascular injury with appropriate therapeutic interventions. Currently, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the primary selection criterion for inclusion in most TBI clinical trials. While the GCS is extremely useful in the clinical management and prognosis of TBI, it does not provide specific information about the pathophysiologic mechanisms which are responsible for neurological deficits and targeted by interventions. On the premise that brain injuries with similar pathoanatomic features are likely to share common pathophysiologic mechanisms, participants proposed that a new, multidimensional classification system should be developed for TBI clinical trials. It was agreed that preclinical models were vital in establishing pathophysiologic mechanisms relevant to specific pathoanatomic types of TBI and verifying that a given therapeutic approach improves outcome in these targeted TBI types. In a clinical trial, patients with the targeted pathoanatomic injury type would be selected using an initial diagnostic entry criterion, including their severity of injury. Coexisting brain injury types would be identified and multivariate prognostic modeling used for refinement of inclusion/exclusion criteria and patient stratification. Outcome assessment would utilize endpoints relevant to the targeted injury type. Advantages and disadvantages of currently available diagnostic, monitoring, and assessment tools were discussed. Recommendations were made for enhancing the utility of available or emerging tools in order to facilitate implementation of a pathoanatomic classification approach for clinical trials.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The secondary insult (ie, secondary damage, nonmechanical damage), characterizes consecutive neuropathological processes initiated at the moment of injury with delayed clinical presentation.For example, intracranial hypertension, hypoxia, hyponatremia, and cerebral ischemia refer to secondary insults, and these types of injury are variably sensitive to therapeutic interventions (94,97,111).”
From Pituitary Dysfunction After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Clinical and Pathophysiological Approach (2015) · cites this paper as [111]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This strategy presents additional challenges as each animal model reflects a specific type of TBI and does not fully recapitulate primary and secondary damage evident in human TBI (45) resulting in restricted translation (46).”
From The Inflammatory Continuum of Traumatic Brain Injury and Alzheimer’s Disease (2018) · cites this paper as [45]
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
1 retracted
Demann, D., & Leisman, G. (1990) · International Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.3109/00207459008986624 · Cited by 107
RetractedThe satisfaction with life scale
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 · Cited by 31,768
ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 · Cited by 13,215
Peto, R., Pike, M. C., Armitage, P., Breslow, N. E., Cox, D. R., Howard, S. V., Mantel, N., McPherson, K., Peto, J., & Smith, P. G. (1977) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1977.1 · Cited by 8,285
Baker, S. P., O’Neill, B., Haddon, W. F., & Long, W. B. (1974) · PubMed · Cited by 7,946
ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME AFTER SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE A Practical Scale
JENNETT, B. (1975) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(75)92830-5 · Cited by 7,501
Baker, S. P., O’Neill, B., Haddon, W. F., & Long, W. B. (1974) · The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · doi:10.1097/00005373-197403000-00001 · Cited by 7,326
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
World Health Organization (2021) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t76403-000 · Cited by 3,751
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Chard, G. (2004) · British Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1177/030802260406700101 · Cited by 3,697
Peto, R., Pike, M. C., Armitage, P., Breslow, N. E., Cox, D. R., Howard, S. V., Mantel, N., McPherson, K., Peto, J., & Smith, P. G. (1976) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1976.220 · Cited by 2,294
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury. 2007. J. Neurotrauma, 24,Suppl 1:S1–106.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Traumatic brain injury: progress and challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research
Maas, A. I. R., Menon, D. K., Manley, G. T., Abrams, M. B., Åkerlund, C. A. I., Anđelić, N., Aries, M. J. H., Bashford, T., Bell, M. J., Bodien, Y. G., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(22)00309-x · Cited by 1,737
Self-citationAnimal models of traumatic brain injury
Xiong, Y., Mahmood, A., & Chopp, M. (2013) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3407 · Cited by 1,456
Blood–brain barrier breakdown as a therapeutic target in traumatic brain injury
Shlosberg, D., Benifla, M., Kaufer, D., & Friedman, A. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2010.74 · Cited by 897
Traumatic Brain Injuries: Pathophysiology and Potential Therapeutic Targets
Ng, S. Y., & Lee, A. Y. W. (2019) · Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncel.2019.00528 · Cited by 906
Neuroimmunology of Traumatic Brain Injury: Time for a Paradigm Shift
Jassam, Y. N., Izzy, S., Whalen, M., McGavern, D. B., & El Khoury, J. (2017) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.07.010 · Cited by 799
Metadata
- Authors
- Saatman, K. E., Duhaime, A.-C., Bullock, R., Maas, A. I. R., Valadka, A., & Manley, G. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Kentucky (US)
- Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Manley, Geoffrey T.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurotrauma
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 719-738
- ISSN
- 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9042
- PMC
- PMC2721779
- OpenAlex
- W2050800676
- Cited by
- 1,141
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 102 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 70
- FWCI
- 32.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Neurotrauma (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P01NS038660, R01NS042691, R01NS050173, P01NS058484, R01NS045131)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD045364)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
- Keywords
- traumatic brain injury, targeted therapy, pathophysiological mechanisms, Glasgow Coma Scale, clinical trial design, patient selection criteria, patient stratification, prognostic model, preclinical models, outcome measurement, neurovascular injury
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain Injuries, Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Diagnosis, Differential, Diagnostic Imaging, Disability Evaluation, Disease Models, Animal, Humans, Trauma Severity Indices, Glasgow Coma Scale, Endpoint Determination
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
