Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,235

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients

Open access
MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators·2008·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate practical prognostic models for death at 14 days and for death or severe disability six months after traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multivariable logistic regression to select variables that were independently associated with two patient outcomes. Two models designed: "basic" model (demographic and clinical variables only) and "CT" model (basic model plus results of computed tomography). The models were subsequently developed for high and low-middle income countries separately. SETTING: Medical Research Council (MRC) CRASH Trial. SUBJECTS: 10,008 patients with traumatic brain injury. Models externally validated in a cohort of 8509. RESULTS: The basic model included four predictors: age, Glasgow coma scale, pupil reactivity, and the presence of major extracranial injury. The CT model also included the presence of petechial haemorrhages, obliteration of the third ventricle or basal cisterns, subarachnoid bleeding, midline shift, and non-evacuated haematoma. In the derivation sample the models showed excellent discrimination (C statistic above 0.80). The models showed good calibration graphically. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test also indicated good calibration, except for the CT model in low-middle income countries. External validation for unfavourable outcome at six months in high income countries showed that basic and CT models had good discrimination (C statistic 0.77 for both models) but poorer calibration. CONCLUSION: Simple prognostic models can be used to obtain valid predictions of relevant outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.39461.643438.25

Cites

20 of 20 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 20 references

Cited by

See all 1,235

Metadata

Authors
Collaborators, M. C. T.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-02-12
Volume
336
Issue
7641
Pages
425-429
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
OpenAlex
W1594364707
Cited by
1,235
References
20
FWCI
25.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39461.643438.25
The paper
Collaborators, M. C. T. (2008). Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39461.643438.25

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.