Surgical trial in traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage (STITCH) : A randomised controlled trial of early surgery compared with Initial conservative treatment

Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Low-value clinical practices in adult traumatic brain injury : an umbrella review

Despite numerous interventions and treatment options, the outcomes of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have improved little over the last 3 decades, which raises concern about the value of care in this patient population. We aimed to synthesize the evidence on 14 potentially low-value clinical practices in TBI care. Using umbrella review methodology, we identified systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of 14 potentially low-value practices in adults with acute TBI. We present data on methodological quality (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews), reported effect sizes, and credibility of evidence (I to IV). The only clinical practice with evidence of benefit was therapeutic hypothermia (credibility of evidence II to IV). However, the most recent meta-analysis on hypothermia based on high-quality trials suggested harm (credibility of evidence IV). Meta-analyses on platelet transfusion for patients on antiplatelet therapy were all consistent with harm but were statistically non-significant. For the following practices, effect estimates were consistently close to the null: computed tomography (CT) in adults with mild TBI who are low-risk on a validated clinical decision rule; repeat CT in adults with mild TBI on anticoagulant therapy with no clinical deterioration; antibiotic prophylaxis for external ventricular drain placement; and decompressive craniectomy for refractory intracranial hypertension. We identified five clinical practices with evidence of lack of benefit or harm. However, evidence could not be considered to be strong for any clinical practice as effect measures were imprecise and heterogeneous, systematic reviews were often of low quality, and most included studies had a high risk of bias

Covariate adjustment increased power in randomized controlled trials: an example in traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine to what extent covariate adjustment could affect power in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a heterogeneous population with traumatic brain injury (TBI). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed 14-day mortality in 9,497 participants in the Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head Injury (CRASH) RCT of corticosteroid vs. placebo. Adjustment was made using logistic regression for baseline covariates of two validated risk models derived from external data (International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury [IMPACT]) and from the CRASH data. The relative sample size (RESS) measure, defined as the ratio of the sample size required by an adjusted analysis to attain the same power as the unadjusted reference analysis, was used to assess the impact of adjustment. RESULTS: Corticosteroid was associated with higher mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio=1.25, 95% confidence interval=1.13-1.39). RESS of 0.79 and 0.73 were obtained by adjustment using the IMPACT and CRASH models, respectively, which, for example, implies an increase from 80% to 88% and 91% power, respectively. CONCLUSION: Moderate gains in power may be obtained using covariate adjustment from logistic regression in heterogeneous conditions such as TBI. Although analyses of RCTs might consider covariate adjustment to improve power, we caution against this approach in the planning of RCTs