SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Diagnostic accuracy of blast-induced traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this review was to systematically evaluate the existing diagnostic approaches of primary blast-induced brain injury through meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Defense Technical Information Center databases. Reference lists from the 15 identified studies mainly focused on clinical interviews, vestibular/ocular motor screening tools, neuroimaging, and non-specific biomarkers. Univariate meta-regression and subgroup analyses were employed to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Results: This meta-analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in included studies, the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0.93 [95%CI: 0.81-0.97], 0.90 [95%CI: 0.80-0.95] and 0.96 [95%CI: 0.94-0.98], respectively. However, the choice of diagnostic tools should take clinical practice scenarios into consideration. Biomarker-based and neuroimaging approaches both achieved good diagnostic accuracy but were inaccessible in acute, resource-constrained battlefield scenarios. VOMS-based assessment may be more suitable for front-line and field use. Among structured clinical review tools, the BATL-2 instrument performed best in identifying primary blast-related TBI. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy in the existing diagnostic methods for primary bTBI. However, each methods shows distinct applicability in different clinical scenarios. Much effort should be devoted to developing rapid, non-invasive and precise diagnostic approaches of primary bTBI in emergency settings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261281668; identifier: CRD420261281668.
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.