MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407728246 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091971

Effect of statins on neurological functional outcomes in critically ill adult patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4407728246 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Veillette, Mauricio Umaña, Marc‐Aurèle Gagnon, Olivier Costerousse, Ryan Zarychanski, Daniel F. McAuley, Patrick R. Lawler, François Lauzier, Shane English, Lynne Moore, Chartelin Jean Isaac, Alexis F. Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAtorvastatinMeta-analysisTraumatic brain injuryRelative riskRandomized controlled trialClinical trialMEDLINEPhysical therapyInternal medicineGlasgow Outcome ScaleIntensive care unitEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineConfidence intervalPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Statins are considered a promising therapy in traumatic brain injury (TBI) because of their role in mediating inflammatory injury and other endothelial properties. Whether they can improve patient outcomes is unknown. Objectives To evaluate the effect of statins in critically ill patients with TBI. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eligibility criteria Trials of adult patients with acute moderate or severe TBI. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central and Web of Science databases for trials comparing the use of any statin with placebo or other interventions. Our primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS or GOS extended); secondary outcomes were mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay. We used inverse variance random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences. We assessed the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and the presence of statistical heterogeneity using the I 2 index. Levels of evidence for summary effect measures were evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. 1 Results Of the 2418 retrieved records, 7 trials met our eligibility criteria. Three studied simvastatin, and four studied atorvastatin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 2 to 10 days, and outcomes were assessed between ICU discharge and 6 months. Five trials were considered at high risk of bias. We observed no statistically significant association between statins and the GOS (RR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.22; two trials; n=84, I 2 =0%; very low certainty) or mortality (RR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.44; three trials; n=160, I 2 =0%; very low certainty). No significant effect was observed for ICU length of stay, while hospital length of stay was evaluated in one trial showing shorter duration. Conclusion We found no conclusive evidence supporting the use of statins in critically ill adult patients with TBI at this time. Nevertheless, the trials were limited, and wide confidence intervals resulted in significant uncertainty of the findings. A potential benefit cannot be ruled out, underscoring the need for a larger, well-designed trial. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023421227.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.036
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207