Cited by 10Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchHealth Policy Implementation ScienceTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Starting with the End in Mind: Recommendations to Optimize Implementation of a Novel TBI Classification from the 2024 NINDS TBI Classification and Nomenclature Workshop’s Knowledge to Practice Working Group

Open access
Bragge, Peter, McNett, Molly, Bayley, Mark, Dobbins, Maureen, Nakase-Richardson, Risa, Peek-Asa, Corinne, Turgeon, Alexis F., Awwad, Hibah +6 more·2025·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

The Knowledge to Practice Working Group (K2P WG) was one of six expert groups convened in early 2023 to plan the 2024 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Traumatic brain injury (TBI) Classification and Nomenclature Workshop. Recognizing that implementation of revised classification systems is essential to achieve intended impact, the K2P WG’s key aims were to foster shared understanding of knowledge translation (KT), build capacity for implementation of a revised TBI classification system, identify and prioritize KT actions, implementation steps and audiences; and make recommendations to advance implementation. The cornerstone of this work was a focused survey to identify “who needs to do what differently,” while prioritizing potential implementation actions. Survey findings, dialogue with other working groups, stakeholder discussions, and public feedback were also utilized to support implementation of the revised Clinical, Biomarker, Imaging-Modifiers and retrospective TBI classification system. Forty researchers across five working groups responded to the survey (Response Rate = 59.7%). Fifty-two unique implementation actions were identified. The top 15 priorities across the five working groups comprised six pertaining to clinical practice (e.g., change Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] assessment); seven focusing on research (e.g., develop tools for measuring psychological and environmental factors); and one each on lived experience (simplified language for patients and families) and other settings (insurance company support for biomarker testing). Twenty-seven stakeholder groups and 18 target settings were identified as being most impacted by the revised classification system. Key recommendations included: develop guidelines based on systematic reviews, clearly explain the rationale for the change, develop implementation toolkits with input from all stakeholders, and embed the new classification in a learning health system database to facilitate implementation strategies based on audits, feedback, and cost-effectiveness analyses.

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.2024.0576

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • The NINDS TBI Classification and Nomenclature Workshop yielded recommendations to expand TBI classification to include additional clinical assessments, neuroimaging, blood-based biomarkers and psychological and environmental modifiers.

    “The workshop yielded recommendations to expand TBI classification to include additional clinical assessments, neuroimaging, blood-based biomarkers and psychological and environmental modifiers (Bazarian et al., 2025; Bragge et al., 2025; Corrigan et al., 2025; Mac Donald et al., 2025; Manley et al., 2025; Menon et al., 2025; Nelson et al., 2025).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [1]Maas AIR, Menon DK, Adelson PD, et al.; InTBIR Participants and Investigators. Traumatic brain injury: Integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research. Lancet Neurol 2017; 16(12): 987– 1048; doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30371-X 29122524 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [3]National Institute for Neurological DIsorders and Stroke. NINDS TBI Classification and Nomenclature Workshop. n.d. Available from: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/news-events/events/ninds-tbi-classification-and-nomenclature-workshop [Last accessed: May 10, 2024].
  3. [4]Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006; 26(1): 13– 24; doi: 10.1002/chp.47 16557505 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [5]Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, et al.; “Psychological Theory” Group. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14(1): 26– 33; doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 15692000 PMC1743963 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [8]Bragge P, Grimshaw JM, Lokker C, et al.; AIMD Writing/Working Group. AIMD—a validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17(1): 38; doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0314-8 28259155 PMC5336675 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [9]Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, et al. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012; 7(1): 50; doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50 22651257 PMC3462671 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [10]Reis SE, McDonald MC, Byers SJ. Crossing the research valleys of death: The University of Pittsburgh approach. Clin Transl Sci 2008; 1(1): 9– 10; doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2008.00021.x 19412329 PMC2635103 · DOI
  8. [12]Kothari A, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Defining integrated knowledge translation and moving forward: A response to recent commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag 2017; 6(5): 299– 300; doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.15 28812820 PMC5417154 · DOI
  9. [13]Grundy EAC, Kelly LE, Kneipp E, et al. Prioritising research funding for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Australia. J Public Health Pol 2023; 44(4): 658– 673; doi: 10.1057/s41271-023-00441-6 PMC10709470 38017149 · DOI
  10. [14]Bayley MT, Teasell RW, Wolfe DL, et al. Where to build the bridge between evidence and practice? J Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2014; 29(4): 268– 276; doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000053 24984091 · DOI
  11. [15]Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, et al. Research priorities in health communication and participation: International survey of consumers and other stakeholders. BMJ Open 2018; 8(5): e019481; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481 PMC5942413 29739780 · DOI
  12. [16]Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 21; doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 25889199 PMC4328074 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [18]Committee on Accelerating Progress in Traumatic Brain Injury Research and Care, Board on Health Sciences Policy. Board on Health Care Services, et al. Traumatic Brain Injury: A Roadmap for Accelerating Progress. (Berwick D, Bowman K, Matney C. eds). National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. 2022; doi: 10.17226/25394 35533242 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bragge, P., McNett, M., Bayley, M., Dobbins, M., Nakase-Richardson, R., Peek-Asa, C., Turgeon, A. F., Awwad, H., Dams-O’Connor, K., Doperalski, A., Maas, A., McCrea, M., Umoh, N., & Manley, G.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • James A. Haley Veterans Hospital & Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Corresponding author
Bragge, Peter
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2025-07
Volume
42
Issue
13-14
Pages
1096-1108
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W4410161423
Cited by
10
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurotrauma (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, knowledge translation, implementation strategies, knowledge to practice, Glasgow Coma Scale, biomarker testing, stakeholder engagement, implementation toolkit, learning health systems
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Humans, Terminology as Topic, United States, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U.S.)

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