Adherence to Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines for Management of Traumatic Brain Injury Patients and Its Effect on Outcomes: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) management based on Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) guidelines is widely accepted and thought to improve outcome. The objectives of this study are to provide an overview of adherence to BTF guidelines and to explore which factors influence adherence. We conducted a search of relevant electronic bibliographic databases. Twenty articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria out of 666 articles screened. All were cohort studies. Wide variation in adherence to BTF guidelines was observed with a median of 66.2% (range 0-100%). The lowest median adherence was observed with surgical management (14%), whereas the highest was observed with oxygenation (100%), steroid (97.8%), and blood pressure recommendation (92.3%). Variability was primarily explained by the variation in the strength of evidence of each recommendation. Treating patients with higher severity of injury as well as treatment in a Level I trauma center positively influenced adherence. Overall, adherence to BTF guidelines varies. Further research is required to strengthen the current evidence and to identify factors related to adherence to guidelines from a professional prospective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".