Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38660461›Full record

ArticleNeurotrauma reports2024

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: Statement of Working Principles and Rapid Review of Methods to Define Data Dictionaries for Neurological Conditions.

Matthew K Bagg, Amelia J Hicks, Sarah C Hellewell, Jennie L Ponsford, Natasha A Lannin, Terence J O'Brien, Peter A Cameron, D Jamie Cooper, Nick Rushworth, Belinda J Gabbe and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurotrauma reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Matthew K BaggCurtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.
Amelia J HicksSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sarah C HellewellCurtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.
Jennie L PonsfordSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Natasha A LanninDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Terence J O'BrienDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Peter A CameronNational Trauma Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
D Jamie CooperSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Nick RushworthBrain Injury Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Belinda J GabbeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Melinda FitzgeraldCurtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to develop a health informatics approach to collect data predictive of outcomes for persons with moderate-severe TBI across Australia. Central to this approach is a data dictionary; however, no systematic reviews of methods to define and develop data dictionaries exist to-date. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify and characterize methods for designing data dictionaries to collect outcomes or variables in persons with neurological conditions. Database searches were conducted from inception through October 2021. Records were screened in two stages against set criteria to identify methods to define data dictionaries for neurological conditions (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: 08, 22, and 23). Standardized data were extracted. Processes were checked at each stage by independent review of a random 25% of records. Consensus was reached through discussion where necessary. Thirty-nine initiatives were identified across 29 neurological conditions. No single established or recommended method for defining a data dictionary was identified. Nine initiatives conducted systematic reviews to collate information before implementing a consensus process. Thirty-seven initiatives consulted with end-users. Methods of consultation were "roundtable" discussion (

Indexed as

brain injuriescommon data elementsneurologysystematic review [publication type]traumatic

Identifiers

PMID38660461
PMCPMC11040195

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.