The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intracranial bleeding in patients with traumatic brain injury: A prognostic study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Intracranial bleeding (IB) is a common and serious consequence of traumatic brain injury (TBI). IB can be classified according to the location into: epidural haemorrhage (EDH) subdural haemorrhage (SDH) intraparenchymal haemorrhage (IPH) and subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). Studies involving repeated CT scanning of TBI patients have found that IB can develop or expand in the 48 hours after injury. If IB enlarges after hospital admission and larger bleeds have a worse prognosis, this would provide a therapeutic rationale for treatments to prevent increase in the extent of bleeding. We analysed data from the Trauma Audit & Research Network (TARN), a large European trauma registry, to evaluate the association between the size of IB and mortality in patients with TBI. METHODS: We analysed 13,962 patients presenting to TARN participating hospitals between 2001 and 2008 with a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) less than 15 at presentation or any head injury with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) severity code 3 and above. The extent of intracranial bleeding was determined by the AIS code. Potential confounders were age, presenting Glasgow Coma Score, mechanism of injury, presence and nature of other brain injuries, and presence of extra-cranial injuries. The outcomes were in-hospital mortality and haematoma evacuation. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent effect of large and small size of IB, in comparison with no bleeding, on patient outcomes. We also conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the independent effect on mortality of large IB in comparison with small IB. RESULTS: Almost 46% of patients had at some type of IB. Subdural haemorrhages were present in 30% of the patients, with epidural and intraparenchymal present in approximately 22% each. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found that large IB, wherever located, was associated with increased mortality in comparison with no bleeding. We also found that large IB was associated with an increased risk of mortality in comparison with small IB. The odds ratio for mortality for large SDH, IPH and EDH, in comparison with small bleeds, were: 3.41 (95% CI: 2.684.33), 3.47 (95% CI: 2.265.33) and 2.86 (95% CI: 1.864.38) respectively. CONCLUSION: Large EDH, SDH and IPH are associated with a substantially higher probability of hospital mortality in comparison with small IB. However, the limitations of our data, such as the large proportion of missing data and lack of data on other confounding factors, such as localization of the bleeding, make the results of this report only explanatory. Future studies should also evaluate the effect of IB size on functional outcomes.
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.
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
Cited by
Yarahmadi, A., Dorri Giv, M., Hosseininejad, R., Rezaie, A., Mohammadi, N., Afkhami, H., & Farokhi, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1472679 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Perel, P., Roberts, I., Bouamra, O., Woodford, M., Mooney, J., & Lecky, F.
- Venue
- BMC Emergency Medicine
- Published
- 2009-08-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-15
- ISSN
- 1471-227X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1982305254
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Intracranial bleeding in patients with traumatic brain injury: A prognostic study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-227x-9-15
- The paper
- Perel, P., Roberts, I., Bouamra, O., Woodford, M., Mooney, J., & Lecky, F. (2009). Intracranial bleeding in patients with traumatic brain injury: A prognostic study. BMC Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-227x-9-15
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.