ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Validation Study of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Case-Identifying Algorithms in French Emergency Departments: High Performance in Children but Limited in Adults.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is an important public health issue, but France does not have a dedicated epidemiological surveillance system for mTBI. Data on Emergency departments (ED) of the OSCOUR network could be useful for setting up a dedicated mTBI surveillance system. However, the performance of potential algorithms based on ICD-10 codes for identifying cases of mTBI in OSCOUR has not been assessed. The objective of this study is to measure the performance of various potential algorithms, based on ICD-10 codes, for identifying mTBI ED visits in the OSCOUR database. Material and Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter validation study of algorithms for identifying mTBI based on ICD-10 codes using the OSCOUR database. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the various algorithms by using medical charts from ED visits as a reference source. Our study population consisted of a random sample of patients of all ages in France who visited one of the four ED from the OSCOUR network, which participated in our study in 2019. Results: 5,185 medical charts were reviewed. Algorithms performance varied according to population characteristics, and none of the algorithms tested for the identification of mTBI cases achieved the minimum performance requirements (sensitivity and PPV ≥ 80%) over all age or sex groups. However, sub-group analyses highlighted that one algorithm (BA31_OPT1) had acceptable performance for identifying mTBI according to our "broad" definition for people under 18 years old. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for this algorithm were 85.2%, 99.4%, 95.2% and 98%, respectively. Conclusion: Most mTBI case identification algorithms performed poorly in identifying mTBI cases of all ages in the OSCOUR database. Nevertheless, it was possible to identify cases defined according to a "broad" mTBI definition in the paediatric population (0-17 years).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.