Abstract
Statistical models for outcome prediction are central to traumatic brain injury research and critical to baseline risk adjustment. Glasgow coma score (GCS) and pupil reactivity are crucial co-variates in all such models but may be measured at multiple time points between the time of injury and hospital and are subject to a variable degree of unreliability and/or missingness. Imputation of missing data may be undertaken using full multiple imputation or by simple substitution of measurements from other time points. However it is unknown which strategy is best or which time points are more predictive. We evaluated the pseudo-R2 of logistic regression models (dichotomous survival) and proportional odds models (Glasgow Outcome Score-extended) using different imputation strategies from data from the The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Substitution strategies were easy to implement, achieved low levels of missingness (<< 10%) and could outperform multiple imputation without the need for computationally costly calculations and pooling multiple final models. Model performance was sensitive to imputation strategy although this was small in absolute terms and clinical relevance. A strategy of using the emergency department discharge assessments and working back in time when these were missing generally performed well. Full multiple imputation had the advantage of preserving time-dependence in the models: The pre-hospital assessments were found to be relatively unreliable predictors of survival or outcome. The predictive performance of later assessments was model-dependent. In conclusion, simple substitution strategies for imputing baseline GCS and pupil response can perform well and may be a simple alternative to full multiple imputation in many cases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
This work involves analysis of previously collected data and is not a trial and does not require registration. However the underlying CENTER-TBI dataset was collected as part of Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02210221
Clinical Protocols
https://www.center-tbi.eu/data
Funding Statement
European Union 7th Framework Programme, the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung, OneMind, and Integra LifeSciences Corporation.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This sub-study was undertaken as part of the data curation process for the CENTER-TBI study. Specific ethics was not required but use of the data for this purpose was explicitly approved by the CENTER-TBI management committee. The original study, registration and ethical framework has been previously described in: 1. Maas et al 2014 Neurosurgery, Volume 76, Issue 1, January 2015, Pages 67-80, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): A Prospective Longitudinal Observational Study DOI 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575 2. Steyerberg et al. 2019 Case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in CENTER-TBI: a European prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, cohort study DOI 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30232-7 The international ethical approvals for each participating nation in the original data collection / CENTER-TBI study can be found at the study website https://www.center-tbi.eu/project/ethical-approval
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵† CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators listed in the supplementary materials.
Data Availability
Data is available on application from the CENTER-TBI management committee at https://www.center-tbi.eu/data
