Traumatic Brain InjuryCENTER-TBINCT02210221
CENTER-TBI: Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI
An observational study of Traumatic Brain Injury, run by University Hospital, Antwerp at 65 sites in 19 countries.
Trial summary
The research aims of the CENTER-TBI study are to: 1. better characterize Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) as a disease and describe it in a European context, and 2. identify the most effective clinical interventions for managing TBI. Specific aims 1. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Traumatic Brain Injury
- How many people
- 4,559 participants
- Where
- 65 sitesin 19 countries
- Study dates
- 19 Dec 2014to 31 Mar 2021
- How long will I take part?
- 6 Months
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients presenting with traumatic brain injury. The data collection will be stratified upon enrolment into 3 clinical groups differentiated by clinical care path: * ER stratum: patients seen and discharged from the ER * Admission stratum: patients admitted to hospital but not to the ICU * ICU stratum: patients admitted directly to the ICU
Who may be able to join
- Clinical diagnosis of TBI
- Clinical indication for CT scan
- Presentation within 24 hours of injury
- Informed consent obtained according to local and national requirements
Who cannot join
- Severe pre-existing neurological disorder that would confound outcome assessments
Trial locations and contacts
65 sites in 19 countries.
65 sites in 19 countries
United Kingdom9 sites
Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Birmingham
Southmead Hospital
Bristol
Addenbrookes Hospital
Cambridge
Lothian Health Board
Edinburgh
The Walton centre NHS Foundation Trust
Liverpool
Kings college London
London
Salford Royal Hospital
Salford
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Sheffield
University Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust
Southampton
Italy8 sites
Bufalini Hospital
Cesena
Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Poloclinico
Milan
Niguarda Hospital
Milan
S Raffaele University Hospital
Milan
ASST di Monza
Monza
Maggiore Della Carità Hospital
Novara
Azienda Ospedaliera Università di Padova
Padova
AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino
Torino
Netherlands7 sites
University Medical Center Groningen
Groningen
Leiden University Medical Center
Leiden
Radboud University Medical Center
Nijmegen
Erasmus MC
Rotterdam
Medical Center Haaglanden
The Hague
The HAGA Hospital
The Hague
TweeSteden Ziekenhuis
Tilburg
France5 sites
University Hospital of Grenoble
Grenoble
Lille University Hospital
Lille
University Hospital Nancy
Nancy
APHP
Paris
CHU Poitiers
Poitiers
Belgium4 sites
Antwerp University Hospital
Edegem
University Hospitals Leuven
Leuven
CHR Citadelle
Liège
CHU Liege
Liège
Germany4 sites
University Hospital Aachen
Aachen
Charité Campus Virchow
Berlin
University Hospital Heidelberg
Heidelberg
Klinikum Ludwigsburg
Ludwigsburg
Spain4 sites
Vall d'Hebron University Hospital
Barcelona
Cruces University Hospital
Bilbao
Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre
Madrid
Clínico Universitario de Valencia
Valencia
Latvia3 sites
Rezekne Hospital
Rēzekne
Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital
Riga
Riga Eastern Clinical University Hospital
Riga
Lithuania3 sites
University of Health Sciences
Kaunas
Center of neurovascular surgery, Clinic of neurology and neurosurgery, Vilnius University
Vilnius
Kaunas University of technology and Vilnius University
Vilnius
Norway3 sites
Oslo University Hospital
Oslo
University Hospital Northern Norway
Tromsø
St Olavs Hospital/Norwegian University of science and technology
Trondheim
Austria2 sites
Innsbruck Medical University
Innsbruck
Medical University Vienna
Vienna
Denmark2 sites
Region Hovedstaden Rigshospitalet
Copenhagen
Odense University Hospital
Odense
Finland2 sites
Helsinki University Central Hospital
Helsinki
Turku University Hospital
Turku
Israel2 sites
Rambam Medical Center
Haifa
Hadassah-hebrew University Medical Center
Jerusalem
Sweden2 sites
Karolinska University Hospital
Stockholm
Umea University Hospital
Umeå
About this study
Official title: Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI)
The research aims of the CENTER-TBI study are to:
- better characterize Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) as a disease and describe it in a European context, and
- identify the most effective clinical interventions for managing TBI.
Read more
Specific aims
- To collect high quality clinical and epidemiological data with repositories for neuro-imaging, DNA, and serum from patients with TBI.
- To refine and improve outcome assessment and develop health utility indices for TBI.
- To develop multidimensional approaches to characterisation and prediction of TBI.
- To define patient profiles which predict efficacy of specific interventions ("Precision Medicine").
- To develop performance indicators for quality assurance and quality improvement in TBI care.
- To validate the common data elements (CDEs) for broader use in international settings, and to develop a user-friendly web based data entry instrument and case report form builder.
- To develop an open database compatible with Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR).
- To intensify networking activities and international collaborations in TBI.
- To disseminate study results and management recommendations for TBI to health care professionals, policy makers and consumers, aiming to improve health care for TBI at individual and population levels.
- To develop a "knowledge commons" for TBI, integrating CENTER-TBI outputs into systematic reviews.
Read the detailed description
- Introduction:
CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI) (www.center-tbi.eu) is a project embedded within the International Initiative on TBI Research (InTBIR) (http://intbir.nih.gov/), as a collaboration between the European Commission (EC), the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIH-NINDS) and the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR).
- Research aims:
The basic concept of this project is to exploit the existing heterogeneity in biology, care and outcome of TBI patients to discover underlying pathophysiology, to refine characterisation, and to identify effective clinical interventions. The key driver of our research plan is to collect data from a large number of European centres and sufficiently large cohort to enable 'Comparative effectiveness research' (CER) analyses of differences in clinical care and management pathways in TBI.
Improved disease characterization will aid Precision Medicine, a concept recently enunciated by the US National Academy of Science. Such improved characterization and stratification will allow for more targeted therapies. Further, CER provides a promising framework to identify best practices and improve outcome after TBI. CER is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of CER is to assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels.
- Cohort:
A large core cohort of patients across the severity spectrum in TBI will be recruited at approximately 77 sites in Europe and Israel (the CENTER-TBI Core Study): 5400 patients differentiated into 3 equal strata of approximately 1800:
- ER stratum: patients seen and discharged from the ER;
- Admission stratum: patients admitted to the hospital but not to the ICU;
- ICU stratum: patients admitted directly to the ICU. Balance in numbers between the strata will be aimed for, but sites will be allowed to arrange recruitment strategies to best suit their local requirements.
The core cohort will be underpinned by comparison with a larger registry (the CENTER-TBI registry) based on pragmatic data collection of all patients with TBI seen in participating centres (to establish the internal generalizability of our study), and by comparison with national trauma registries (to establish the external generalizability of our findings).
In the core cohort, detailed data will be collected on clinical parameters, neuroimaging studies, biomarker analyses, DNA analyses, and longitudinal outcome assessments. In selected centres, extended studies will additionally focus on advanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, detailed coagulation profiling and high resolution ICU monitoring.
- Sample size assessment:
The sample size estimate (n=5400) was based on:
- Practical logistic considerations
- Power calculations for the different strata, targeting comparative effectiveness analyses, assuming a between-centre and between-country heterogeneity as identified in previous research (expressed by variance parameter from a random effects model, Tau^2 of 0.431)
- Postulated odds ratios for intervention effects of approximately 5% improvement in outcome.
Overall, these calculations provided a statistical power to detect odds ratios of ~1.2 associated with differences in process or intervention variables across the core dataset with a power of 80%; and require somewhat larger odds ratios in each of the three individual strata. In the registry we expect to be able to detect differences (predominantly in organizational or system variables) with an odds ratio of 1.2 with a power of 82%.
- Quality control and assurance:
Continuous monitoring of enrolment and completeness of data will be performed by ICON as contract research organization (CRO). Source data verification (SDV) will be performed in 10% of subjects by the CRO. The quality of data collection will be further enhanced by implementing automated data entry checks for impossible/implausible values and implementing data checks for consistency between variables. A task force of study personnel will evaluate the completeness, consistency and validity of submitted data and function as support desk for participating sites.
- Data management:
Prior to upload to the study database, all acquired data will be stored locally. All patients will be allocated a random Global Unique Personal Identification number (GUPI) which will be linked locally to hospital identifiers. All uploaded data will be de-identified and images will be defaced prior to upload. While blood samples and clinical data will be linked, both sets of data will be kept confidential and anonymised beyond the initial stage of correlation for analysis. All imaging and electronic data will be kept on individually password protected servers. All clinical data will be entered into electronic Case Report Forms (eCRFs) and managed by the 'QuesGen data management platform' (http://www.quesgen.com/) which will be developed in collaboration with Karolinska Institutet International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Faculty (KI-INCF). As data is entered into each form, the system will run data validation checks that include conditionally required data, validation across fields, and validation requirements based on subject type. If any validation check fails, the user is alerted immediately that the data does not meet Quality Assurance (QA) criteria and the issue can be addressed and corrected at that point. All de-identified electronic study data in the CENTER-TBI database will be stored securely in the European data space under supervision of KI-INCF for the duration of subject enrolment and follow-up and for a period afterwards for data analysis and preparation of publications. We estimate that the analysis and publication period will last for several years after the conclusion of subject enrolment.
Together with QuesGen Systems, KI-INCF will ensure that data standards are established for the data model e.g. conformity of field formats, field codes and names to ensure consistency across all datasets. Any approved changes will be fully documented with dataset updates to maintain data quality and accuracy. KI-INCF will be responsible for importing cleaned datasets to other analytic platforms as determined by the coordinators.
Where applicable, information relevant to the patient's care will be made available to the physician responsible. Data, including blood samples collected as part of this study will be shared in an anonymised form with collaborators from other European states (this is part of a European Commission Framework7 funded program), and with selected collaborators in other countries who form part of an emerging International Traumatic Brain Injury Research initiative.
- Computing platform and Neuroinformatics Resource:
The KI-INCF will coordinate the establishment of an informatics platform for acquisition, storage and analysis of CDE-based clinical data. The goal is to develop a next generation open standards-based platform to support advanced large-scale analytics and model building. Such a platform also provides a model for future clinical studies on brain diseases and disorders. This development will receive additional support from One Mind for Research.
- Statistical analysis plan:
Statistical analyses for the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) questions will primarily apply random effects modelling, in which center is included at the higher level, and patients are considered clustered within centers. In some analyses, higher levels of clustering will also be considered, e.g. country, or European region; or lower levels, e.g. physicians within hospitals. Confounding factors as measured at the individual patient and/or center level, will be considered extensively, and will be targeted to the specific research question.
Statistical analyses for better characterization of TBI will be exploratory, aiming to better understand the complexity of the disease and to discover new associations. In addition to standard statistical descriptive and inferential techniques, we will also employ novel machine learning techniques as appropriate.
Prognostic analyses will consider a range of variables, including genetic, demographic and clinical data, physiological signals, imaging results, and biomarkers as predictors of early endpoints and physiologic derangement (e.g. raised ICP), and late outcome, including mortality, functional outcome, quality of life and neuropsychological performance. Previously and newly developed prediction models will be validated by comparison of observed to predicted outcome risks, with predictive performance summarized by measures for model fit, discrimination, and calibration.
- Missing data:
Every effort will be made to limit the number of missing data in the CENTER-TBI study. Missing values are, however, inherent to any clinical study. Missing values may confound the descriptive, prognostic and CER analyses. Thus, appropriate techniques for dealing with missing values are required. First, we will evaluate the various reasons for missingness per centre. Next, we will explore the use of alternative statistical approaches, including inverse probability weighting and multiple imputation. We will consider missing values in baseline characteristics as well as in short and long term outcomes. Based on simulation studies and practical considerations we will develop standard operating procedures towards the analyses with missing values, respecting the differences in multiple research questions.
- Informed Consent:
Informed consent procedures will follow local and national requirements in all cases. We anticipate that many potential patients will not be able to consent themselves to participate in this project. The nature of TBI means that some patients may lack capacity to decide to participate in this study especially at the earliest time point. It is important to try and include these patients to ensure that representative samples of patients are included to avoid bias in the study findings. Every step will be taken to ensure that a test of capacity is undertaken before a decision on a person's capacity to consent or not to consent to participation in research is taken. If the subject is not capable of self-consent, all efforts will be made to locate a legally acceptable representative to act on behalf of the subject. When a legally acceptable representative (e.g. consultee/proxy) is identified, their opinion will be sought about the potential participant's wishes and feelings in relation to the project, and whether he or she would have wanted to take part in the study.
Subjects are free to withdraw, or be withdrawn by their consultee/proxy if appropriate, at any point in the study, and they need not state a reason.
- Impact:
The CENTER-TBI project will contribute towards the overall goals of InTBIR, by identifying more effective and efficient treatment provision, thus improving outcome and reducing costs. The science in the project will provide novel information on disease processes, treatment, outcome, and prognosis in TBI, identifying new therapeutic targets and therapies; while the CENTER-TBI repositories will ensure opportunities for legacy research. Thus, the project has the potential to improve current health care and its delivery at both population and individual levels, deliver early scientific advances that could improve the care of patients with TBI, and provide a rich investment for future biomedical research.
- Conditions
- Traumatic Brain Injury
- Keywords
- TBI
- Medical subject headings
- Brain Injuries, Traumatic
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE) at 6 Months
The Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale is a global scale for functional outcome that rates patient status into 8 categories, going from dead to good recovery.
- Death
- Vegetative sate
- Lower severe disability
- Upper severe disability
- Lower moderate disability
- Upper moderate disability - some disability but can potentially return to some form of employment
- Lower good recovery - minor physical or mental defect
- Upper good recovery - full recovery
The 6-month GOSE score is available in 3804 patients (84%).
Measured: 6 months
SF-12v2 Health Survey (Short-Form Health Survey With 12 Questions) at 6 Months
The SF-12v2 Health Survey uses 12 questions to measure functional health and well-being from the patient's point of view. The SF-12v2 at 6 months is available in 2300 patients.
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Quality of Life in Brain Injury (Qolibri-OS) <52 (Impaired)
The Quality of Life in Brain Injury (Qolibri-OS) is a 6 item overall scale that provides a profile of health-related quality of life in domains typicality affected by brain injury, such as physical function, cognition, emotional status, ability to perform daily activities, personal life and social relationship, and satisfaction with current situation and future prospects.
The QOLIBRI scores are reported on a 0-100 scale , where 0=worst possible quality of life and 100=best possible quality of life.
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (15)
6 Month Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) <33 (Impaired)
The PCL-5 is a self-report rating scale intended to assess 20 DSM-5 symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. The standard recall period for the PCL-5 is one month. For CENTER-TBI a recall period of one week was used at the 2-3 week assessment, and the standard one month recall period was used at other time points. The sum of scores can range from 0 to 80, where high scores indicate more pronounced PTSD symptoms.
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Rivermead Post Concussion Questionnaire <16 (Impaired)
The Rivermead PCS Questionnaire (RPQ) was originally developed as a measure of severity of symptoms following MTBI. It consists of 16 post-concussion symptoms including headaches, dizziness, nausea/vomiting, noise sensitivity, sleep disturbance, fatigue, irritability, feeling depressed/tearful, feeling frustrated/ impatient, forgetfulness, poor concentration, taking longer to think, blurred vision, light sensitivity, double vision and restlessness. In the original version of the RPQ, participants are asked to rate the degree (on a scale of 0 to 4) to which a particular symptom has been absent or a mild, moderate or severe problem over the previous 7 days compared with premorbid levels. Total scores range from 0 to 64 with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms. Scores equal to or greater than 16 were considered indicative of persisting post-concussion symptoms.
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT) < 75 (Impaired)
The GOAT is a standardised assessment used to determine whether a participant is in post-traumatic amnesia (PTA). PTA is an early phase of TBI recovery during which the person with injury shows markedly impaired memory, confusion, fluctuation in performance, disorientation, and other neurobehavioral signs and symptoms. GOAT questions assess orientation, memory for the first event that the participant can recall after the injury, and memory for the last event that the participant can recall from before the injury.
The GOAT's total score must be achieved by subtracting from 100 the total amount of error scores (Total score = 100 - total amount of error scores). Scores lower than 75 point to the fact that the victim is still experiencing amnesia.
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) - Impaired
The Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) is a test of verbal memory that assesses the ability to acquire 15 words. Recall is assessed after each presentation of the list, after the recall of an interference list, and again following a 20-minute delay. The total score for recall of the principal list ranges from 0 to 75, with higher scores indicating better performance.
Impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers.
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Timed up and go Test - Impaired
In the timed up and go (TUG) test, subjects are asked to rise from a standard armchair, walk to a marker 3 m away, turn, walk back, and sit down again, for quantifying functional mobility. The presence of slowness, hesitancy, abnormal trunk or arm movements, staggering or stumbling is used to grade the patient from 1 (normal) to 5 (severely abnormal). Impaired mobility was defined as taking 14 seconds or longer to perform the TUG test.
Measured: 6 months
6 Month JK Coma Recovery Scale - Revised <23 (Impaired)
The Coma Recovery Scale- Revised (CRS-R) is a standardized behavioral assessment instrument designed to measure neurobehavioral function in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). The CRS-R is comprised of six subscales addressing auditory, visual, motor, oromotor/verbal, communication and arousal functions. Subscale items are hierarchically-arranged, corresponding to brain stem, subcortical and cortically-mediated functions. Scores range between 0 (deep coma) and 23 (able to follow commands and to use objects purposefully). A total score less than 23 indicates impairment.
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Trail Making Test (TMT) Part A - Impaired
The Trail Making Test (TMT) is a measure of attention, speed, and mental flexibility. Part A requires the individual to draw lines to connect 25 encircled numbers distributed on a page. Part B is similar except the person must alternate between numbers and letters and is more difficult and takes longer to complete. Both sections are timed and the score represents the amount of time required to complete the task, with shorter times indicating better performance. The maximum time allowed is 100 seconds.
Impairment cutoff: > 55.9 (based on the comparison group as a whole and expressed as raw score).
For all the cognitive tests impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers. Raw scores indicating impaired performance could be > or < than the mean depending on the test (eg. on tests of accuracy the cut-off will be a score 1.33 SDs below the mean, while on a timed test the cut-off will be 1.33 SDs above the mean).
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Trail Making Test (TMT) Part B - Impaired
The TMT is a measure of attention, speed, and mental flexibility. Part A requires the individual to draw lines to connect 25 encircled numbers distributed on a page. Part B is similar except the person must alternate between numbers and letters, is more difficult, takes longer to complete. Both sections are timed, the score represents the amount of time required to complete the task, with shorter times indicating better performance.
Impairment cutoff: > 143.7 (based on the comparison group as a whole and expressed as raw score).
For all the cognitive tests impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers. Raw scores indicating impaired performance could be > or < than the mean depending on the test (eg. on tests of accuracy the cut-off will be a score 1.33 SDs below the mean, while on a timed test the cut-off will be 1.33 SDs above the mean).
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) PAL (Paired Associate Learning Task) - Impaired
CANTAB is a computerized neuropsychological battery examining a range of domains including attention, memory and executive functioning. Using mainly nonverbal stimuli, the test is language- and culture-independent. For CANTAB PAL, the individual must remember 1 to 8 patterns displayed in different positions on the screen. The score is the number of incorrect responses adjusted if necessary for trials that have not been completed. Scores ranged from 0-194 with lower score indicating better performance.
Impairment cutoff: > 72.3 (based on the comparison group as a whole and expressed as raw score).
For all the cognitive tests impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers. Raw scores indicating impaired performance could be > or < than the mean depending on the test (eg. on tests of accuracy the cut-off will be a score 1.33 SDs below the mean, while on a timed test the cut-off will be 1.33 SDs above the mean).
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) RTI (Reaction Time Task) - Impaired
The CANTAB is a computerized neuropsychological battery examining a range of domains including attention, memory and executive functioning. Using mainly nonverbal stimuli, the test is language- and culture-independent. For CANTAB RTI, the individual must respond as quickly as possible to a circle presented at one of 5 positions. The outcome measure is the median time for correct responses (ms).
Impairment cutoff: > 470.9 (based on the comparison group as a whole and expressed as raw score).
For all the cognitive tests impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers. Raw scores indicating impaired performance could be > or < than the mean depending on the test (eg. on tests of accuracy the cut-off will be a score 1.33 SDs below the mean, while on a timed test the cut-off will be 1.33 SDs above the mean).
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) SWM (Spatial Working Memory Task) - Impaired
The CANTAB is a computerized neuropsychological battery examining a range of domains including attention, memory and executive functioning. Using mainly nonverbal stimuli, the test is language- and culture-independent. For the CANTAB SWM, the participant searches for tokens in boxes on the screen. The between errors measure is the number of times the participant queries a box that has already been searched. Errors ranged from 0 to 151, with lower numbers indicating better performance.
Impairment cutoff: > 52.0 (based on the comparison group as a whole and expressed as raw score).
For all the cognitive tests impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers. Raw scores indicating impaired performance could be > or < than the mean depending on the test (eg. on tests of accuracy the cut-off will be a score 1.33 SDs below the mean, while on a timed test the cut-off will be 1.33 SDs above the mean).
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) RVP (Rapid Visual Information Processing Task) - Impaired
The CANTAB is a computerized neuropsychological battery examining a range of domains including attention, memory and executive functioning. Using mainly nonverbal stimuli, the test is language- and culture-independent. For the CANTAB RVP, sequences of numbers must be detected as they appear on the screen. The measure of accuracy is A' (A prime) which is derived from hits and correct rejections. The maximum score is 1 and, a higher A' indicates better performance.
Impairment cutoff: < 0.82 (based on the comparison group as a whole and expressed as raw score).
For all the cognitive tests impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers. Raw scores indicating impaired performance could be > or < than the mean depending on the test (eg. on tests of accuracy the cut-off will be a score 1.33 SDs below the mean, while on a timed test the cut-off will be 1.33 SDs above the mean).
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) SOC (Stockings of Cambridge Task) - Impaired
The CANTAB is a computerized neuropsychological battery examining a range of domains including attention, memory and executive functioning. Using mainly nonverbal stimuli, the test is language- and culture-independent. For the CANTAB SOC, the individual moves circles to match a target in this task based on the Tower of Hanoi game. The score is the number of problems solved in the minimum number of moves, with a maximum of 12. Higher scores indicate better performance.
Impairment cutoff: < 5.7(based on the comparison group as a whole and expressed as raw score).
For all the cognitive tests impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers. Raw scores indicating impaired performance could be > or < than the mean depending on the test (eg. on tests of accuracy the cut-off will be a score 1.33 SDs below the mean, while on a timed test the cut-off will be 1.33 SDs above the mean).
Measured: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) AST (Attention Switching Task ) - Impaired
The CANTAB is a computerized neuropsychological battery examining a range of domains including attention, memory and executive functioning. Using mainly nonverbal stimuli, the test is language- and culture-independent. For the CANTAB AST, participants respond either to the position of an arrow or the direction it is pointing, after being cued to the task on each trial. Total correct responses range from 0 to 160, where higher numbers indicate better performance.
Impairment cutoff: <135.5 (based on the comparison group as a whole and expressed as raw score).
For all the cognitive tests impairment was defined as performance that was 1.33 SDs below the mean of a reference group of healthy peers. Raw scores indicating impaired performance could be > or < than the mean depending on the test (eg. on tests of accuracy the cut-off will be a score 1.33 SDs below the mean, while on a timed test the cut-off will be 1.33 SDs above the mean).
Measured: 6 months
Early (2-3 Weeks) MRI Imaging - Traumatic Intracranial Abnormalities
A selected number of sites performed MRI follow up in a subset of patients that consented for imaging data collection. The CENTER-TBI MR protocols included a high-resolution 3D T1-weighted, a T2-weighted, a FLAIR, a DTI, a T2* sequence (gradient echo and/or SWI), and (optionally) a resting-state fMRI. Across all stratum the MRI sites performed a follow up MRI at 2-3 weeks after injury.
Traumatic Intracranial Abnormalities were assessed according to the TBI-Common Data Elements (CDEs). It indicates whether any of the 12 following imaging abnormalities are present (Mass lesion, Extra-axial Hematoma, Epidural Hematoma, Subdural Hematoma Acute, Subdural Hematoma Subacute Chronic, Subdural Collection Mixed Density, Contusion, TAI, traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Intraventricular Hemorrhage, Midline Shift or Cisternal Compression.
Measured: Between 2-3 weeks after enrolment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Aug 2014 (estimated)
- Study start19 Dec 2014
- Primary completion1 Sep 2018
- Study completion31 Mar 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (34)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Traumatic Brain InjuryStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Hospital, AntwerpThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 4,559 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 6 Months
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Antwerp
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Cambridge, Erasmus Medical Center, San Gerardo Hospital, University of Sheffield, University of California, San Francisco, Karolinska Institutet, ICON plc, GABO:mi, icometrix
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Andrew Maas, University Hospital, Antwerp
- Investigators
- Andrew Maas, MD, PhD, Study chair, Antwerp University Hospital / University of Antwerp, Edegem, BelgiumDavid Menon, MD, PhD, Study director, University of Cambridge, Addenbrookes hospital, Cambridge, UK
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02210221
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 602150
- Acronym
- CENTER-TBI
- Status last verified
- Apr 2022
- First submitted
- 29 Jul 2014
- Last updated
- 7 Nov 2022
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- Yes
Publications
Guglielmi A, Graziano F, Fornoni A, Mangili P, Picetti E, Baggiani M, Chesnut RM, Hawryluk GWJ, Newcombe VFJ, Rebora P, Galimberti S, Citerio G; CENTER-TBI investigators and participants. Association of lifesaving versus non-lifesaving extracranial surgery with long-term outcome after severe traumatic brain injury: a prospective CENTER-TBI cohort analysis. World J Emerg Surg. 2026 Jul 10. doi: 10.1186/s13017-026-00713-y. Online ahead of print.
PubMed 42426883Jacob L, Castro J, Heslot C, Andelic N, Tenovuo O; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators (Appendix); Azouvi P. Absence from work in the 12 months following mild traumatic brain injury in Europe: a CENTER-TBI cohort study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2025 Nov;68(8):102017. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2025.102017. Epub 2025 Sep 30.
PubMed 41032948Kals M, Wilson L, Levey DF, Parodi L, Steyerberg EW, Richardson S, He F, Sun X, Jain S, Palotie A, Ripatti S, Rosand J, Manley GT, Maas AIR, Stein MB, Menon DK; Genetic Associations In Neurotrauma (GAIN) Consortium (with contribution from the CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI studies). Genetic vulnerability and adverse mental health outcomes following mild traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis of CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI cohorts. EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Dec 5;78:102956. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102956. eCollection 2024 Dec.
PubMed 39720422Guglielmi A, Graziano F, Bogossian EG, Turgeon AF, Taccone FS, Citerio G; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Haemoglobin values, transfusion practices, and long-term outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury: a secondary analysis of CENTER-TBI. Crit Care. 2024 Jun 14;28(1):199. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-04980-6.
PubMed 38877571Pisica D, Volovici V, Yue JK, van Essen TA, den Boogert HF, Vande Vyvere T, Haitsma I, Nieboer D, Markowitz AJ, Yuh EL, Steyerberg EW, Peul WC, Dirven CMF, Menon DK, Manley GT, Maas AIR, Lingsma HF; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Clinical and Imaging Characteristics, Care Pathways, and Outcomes of Traumatic Epidural Hematomas: A Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury Study. Neurosurgery. 2024 Nov 1;95(5):986-999. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002982. Epub 2024 May 21.
PubMed 38771081Vreeburg RJG, Singh RD, van Erp IAM, Korhonen TK, Yue JK, Mee H, Timofeev I, Kolias A, Helmy A, Depreitere B, Moojen WA, Younsi A, Hutchinson P, Manley GT, Steyerberg EW, de Ruiter GCW, Maas AIR, Peul WC, van Dijck JTJM, den Boogert HF, Posti JP, van Essen TA; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Early versus delayed cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: a multicenter observational study within CENTER-TBI and Net-QuRe. J Neurosurg. 2024 Apr 26;141(4):895-907. doi: 10.3171/2024.1.JNS232172. Print 2024 Oct 1.
PubMed 38669706Howe EI, Andelic N, Brunborg C, Zeldovich M, Helseth E, Skandsen T, Olsen A, Fure SCR, Theadom A, Rauen K, Madsen BA, Jacobs B, van der Naalt J, Tartaglia MC, Einarsen CE, Storvig G, Tronvik E, Tverdal C, von Steinbuchel N, Roe C, Hellstrom T; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Frequency and predictors of headache in the first 12 months after traumatic brain injury: results from CENTER-TBI. J Headache Pain. 2024 Mar 25;25(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01751-0.
PubMed 38528477Boerwinkle VL, Appavu B, Cediel EG, Erklaurer J, Lalgudi Ganesan S, Gibbons C, Hahn C, LaRovere KL, Moberg D, Natarajan G, Molteni E, Reuther WR, Slomine BS; Curing Coma Campaign, its Contributing Members. Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group in the Pediatric Population. Neurocrit Care. 2024 Feb;40(1):65-73. doi: 10.1007/s12028-023-01870-7. Epub 2023 Dec 7.
PubMed 38062304Zeldovich M, Bockhop F, Covic A, Mueller I, Polinder S, Mikolic A, van der Vlegel M, von Steinbuechel N; CENTER-TBI participants and investigators. Factorial validity and comparability of the six translations of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire translations: results from the CENTER-TBI study. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2023 Sep 8;7(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s41687-023-00632-5.
PubMed 37682406van Essen TA, van Erp IAM, Lingsma HF, Pisica D, Yue JK, Singh RD, van Dijck JTJM, Volovici V, Younsi A, Kolias A, Peppel LD, Heijenbrok-Kal M, Ribbers GM, Menon DK, Hutchinson PJA, Manley GT, Depreitere B, Steyerberg EW, Maas AIR, de Ruiter GCW, Peul WC; CENTER-TBI Investigators and Participants. Comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for traumatic acute subdural hematoma (CENTER-TBI): an observational cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Aug 9;63:102161. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102161. eCollection 2023 Sep.
PubMed 37600483Lang L, Wang T, Xie L, Yang C, Skudder-Hill L, Jiang J, Gao G, Feng J. An independently validated nomogram for individualised estimation of short-term mortality risk among patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a modelling analysis of the CENTER-TBI China Registry Study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Apr 28;59:101975. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101975. eCollection 2023 May.
PubMed 37180469Howe EI, Zeldovich M, Andelic N, von Steinbuechel N, Fure SCR, Borgen IMH, Forslund MV, Hellstrom T, Soberg HL, Sveen U, Rasmussen M, Kleffelgaard I, Tverdal C, Helseth E, Lovstad M, Lu J, Arango-Lasprilla JC, Tenovuo O, Azouvi P, Dawes H, Roe C; CENTER-TBI participants and investigators. Rehabilitation and outcomes after complicated vs uncomplicated mild TBI: results from the CENTER-TBI study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Dec 16;22(1):1536. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08908-0.
PubMed 36527074Rezoagli E, Petrosino M, Rebora P, Menon DK, Mondello S, Cooper DJ, Maas AIR, Wiegers EJA, Galimberti S, Citerio G; CENTER-TBI, OzENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. High arterial oxygen levels and supplemental oxygen administration in traumatic brain injury: insights from CENTER-TBI and OzENTER-TBI. Intensive Care Med. 2022 Dec;48(12):1709-1725. doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06884-x. Epub 2022 Oct 20.
PubMed 36264365Akerlund CAI, Holst A, Stocchetti N, Steyerberg EW, Menon DK, Ercole A, Nelson DW; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Clustering identifies endotypes of traumatic brain injury in an intensive care cohort: a CENTER-TBI study. Crit Care. 2022 Jul 27;26(1):228. doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04079-w.
PubMed 35897070Volovici V, Pisica D, Gravesteijn BY, Dirven CMF, Steyerberg EW, Ercole A, Stocchetti N, Nelson D, Menon DK, Citerio G, van der Jagt M, Maas AIR, Haitsma IK, Lingsma HF; CENTER-TBI investigators, participants for the ICU stratum. Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring: a CENTER-TBI study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022 Jul;164(7):1693-1705. doi: 10.1007/s00701-022-05257-z. Epub 2022 Jun 1.
PubMed 35648213
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Nov 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02210221
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CENTER-TBI / 602150
- Conditions
- Traumatic Brain Injury
- Keywords
- TBI
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 4,559 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, AntwerpUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Cambridge, Erasmus Medical Center, San Gerardo Hospital, University of Sheffield, University of California, San Francisco, Karolinska Institutet, ICON plc, GABO:mi, icometrix
- Study start
- 19 Dec 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Sep 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Mar 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Aug 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 25 Sep 2020
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The research aims of the CENTER-TBI study are to:
- better characterize Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) as a disease and describe it in a European context, and
- identify the most effective clinical interventions for managing TBI.
Specific aims
- To collect high quality clinical and epidemiological data with repositories for neuro-imaging, DNA, and serum from patients with TBI.
- To refine and improve outcome assessment and develop health utility indices for TBI.
- To develop multidimensional approaches to characterisation and prediction of TBI.
- To define patient profiles which predict efficacy of specific interventions ("Precision Medicine").
- To develop performance indicators for quality assurance and quality improvement in TBI care.
- To validate the common data elements (CDEs) for broader use in international settings, and to develop a user-friendly web based data entry instrument and case report form builder.
- To develop an open database compatible with Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR).
- To intensify networking activities and international collaborations in TBI.
- To disseminate study results and management recommendations for TBI to health care professionals, policy makers and consumers, aiming to improve health care for TBI at individual and population levels.
- To develop a "knowledge commons" for TBI, integrating CENTER-TBI outputs into systematic reviews.
Detailed description
- Introduction:
CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI) (www.center-tbi.eu) is a project embedded within the International Initiative on TBI Research (InTBIR) (http://intbir.nih.gov/), as a collaboration between the European Commission (EC), the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIH-NINDS) and the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR).
- Research aims:
The basic concept of this project is to exploit the existing heterogeneity in biology, care and outcome of TBI patients to discover underlying pathophysiology, to refine characterisation, and to identify effective clinical interventions. The key driver of our research plan is to collect data from a large number of European centres and sufficiently large cohort to enable 'Comparative effectiveness research' (CER) analyses of differences in clinical care and management pathways in TBI.
Improved disease characterization will aid Precision Medicine, a concept recently enunciated by the US National Academy of Science. Such improved characterization and stratification will allow for more targeted therapies. Further, CER provides a promising framework to identify best practices and improve outcome after TBI. CER is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of CER is to assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels.
- Cohort:
A large core cohort of patients across the severity spectrum in TBI will be recruited at approximately 77 sites in Europe and Israel (the CENTER-TBI Core Study): 5400 patients differentiated into 3 equal strata of approximately 1800:
- ER stratum: patients seen and discharged from the ER;
- Admission stratum: patients admitted to the hospital but not to the ICU;
- ICU stratum: patients admitted directly to the ICU. Balance in numbers between the strata will be aimed for, but sites will be allowed to arrange recruitment strategies to best suit their local requirements.
The core cohort will be underpinned by comparison with a larger registry (the CENTER-TBI registry) based on pragmatic data collection of all patients with TBI seen in participating centres (to establish the internal generalizability of our study), and by comparison with national trauma registries (to establish the external generalizability of our findings).
In the core cohort, detailed data will be collected on clinical parameters, neuroimaging studies, biomarker analyses, DNA analyses, and longitudinal outcome assessments. In selected centres, extended studies will additionally focus on advanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, detailed coagulation profiling and high resolution ICU monitoring.
- Sample size assessment:
The sample size estimate (n=5400) was based on:
- Practical logistic considerations
- Power calculations for the different strata, targeting comparative effectiveness analyses, assuming a between-centre and between-country heterogeneity as identified in previous research (expressed by variance parameter from a random effects model, Tau^2 of 0.431)
- Postulated odds ratios for intervention effects of approximately 5% improvement in outcome.
Overall, these calculations provided a statistical power to detect odds ratios of ~1.2 associated with differences in process or intervention variables across the core dataset with a power of 80%; and require somewhat larger odds ratios in each of the three individual strata. In the registry we expect to be able to detect differences (predominantly in organizational or system variables) with an odds ratio of 1.2 with a power of 82%.
- Quality control and assurance:
Continuous monitoring of enrolment and completeness of data will be performed by ICON as contract research organization (CRO). Source data verification (SDV) will be performed in 10% of subjects by the CRO. The quality of data collection will be further enhanced by implementing automated data entry checks for impossible/implausible values and implementing data checks for consistency between variables. A task force of study personnel will evaluate the completeness, consistency and validity of submitted data and function as support desk for participating sites.
- Data management:
Prior to upload to the study database, all acquired data will be stored locally. All patients will be allocated a random Global Unique Personal Identification number (GUPI) which will be linked locally to hospital identifiers. All uploaded data will be de-identified and images will be defaced prior to upload. While blood samples and clinical data will be linked, both sets of data will be kept confidential and anonymised beyond the initial stage of correlation for analysis. All imaging and electronic data will be kept on individually password protected servers. All clinical data will be entered into electronic Case Report Forms (eCRFs) and managed by the 'QuesGen data management platform' (http://www.quesgen.com/) which will be developed in collaboration with Karolinska Institutet International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Faculty (KI-INCF). As data is entered into each form, the system will run data validation checks that include conditionally required data, validation across fields, and validation requirements based on subject type. If any validation check fails, the user is alerted immediately that the data does not meet Quality Assurance (QA) criteria and the issue can be addressed and corrected at that point. All de-identified electronic study data in the CENTER-TBI database will be stored securely in the European data space under supervision of KI-INCF for the duration of subject enrolment and follow-up and for a period afterwards for data analysis and preparation of publications. We estimate that the analysis and publication period will last for several years after the conclusion of subject enrolment.
Together with QuesGen Systems, KI-INCF will ensure that data standards are established for the data model e.g. conformity of field formats, field codes and names to ensure consistency across all datasets. Any approved changes will be fully documented with dataset updates to maintain data quality and accuracy. KI-INCF will be responsible for importing cleaned datasets to other analytic platforms as determined by the coordinators.
Where applicable, information relevant to the patient's care will be made available to the physician responsible. Data, including blood samples collected as part of this study will be shared in an anonymised form with collaborators from other European states (this is part of a European Commission Framework7 funded program), and with selected collaborators in other countries who form part of an emerging International Traumatic Brain Injury Research initiative.
- Computing platform and Neuroinformatics Resource:
The KI-INCF will coordinate the establishment of an informatics platform for acquisition, storage and analysis of CDE-based clinical data. The goal is to develop a next generation open standards-based platform to support advanced large-scale analytics and model building. Such a platform also provides a model for future clinical studies on brain diseases and disorders. This development will receive additional support from One Mind for Research.
- Statistical analysis plan:
Statistical analyses for the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) questions will primarily apply random effects modelling, in which center is included at the higher level, and patients are considered clustered within centers. In some analyses, higher levels of clustering will also be considered, e.g. country, or European region; or lower levels, e.g. physicians within hospitals. Confounding factors as measured at the individual patient and/or center level, will be considered extensively, and will be targeted to the specific research question.
Statistical analyses for better characterization of TBI will be exploratory, aiming to better understand the complexity of the disease and to discover new associations. In addition to standard statistical descriptive and inferential techniques, we will also employ novel machine learning techniques as appropriate.
Prognostic analyses will consider a range of variables, including genetic, demographic and clinical data, physiological signals, imaging results, and biomarkers as predictors of early endpoints and physiologic derangement (e.g. raised ICP), and late outcome, including mortality, functional outcome, quality of life and neuropsychological performance. Previously and newly developed prediction models will be validated by comparison of observed to predicted outcome risks, with predictive performance summarized by measures for model fit, discrimination, and calibration.
- Missing data:
Every effort will be made to limit the number of missing data in the CENTER-TBI study. Missing values are, however, inherent to any clinical study. Missing values may confound the descriptive, prognostic and CER analyses. Thus, appropriate techniques for dealing with missing values are required. First, we will evaluate the various reasons for missingness per centre. Next, we will explore the use of alternative statistical approaches, including inverse probability weighting and multiple imputation. We will consider missing values in baseline characteristics as well as in short and long term outcomes. Based on simulation studies and practical considerations we will develop standard operating procedures towards the analyses with missing values, respecting the differences in multiple research questions.
- Informed Consent:
Informed consent procedures will follow local and national requirements in all cases. We anticipate that many potential patients will not be able to consent themselves to participate in this project. The nature of TBI means that some patients may lack capacity to decide to participate in this study especially at the earliest time point. It is important to try and include these patients to ensure that representative samples of patients are included to avoid bias in the study findings. Every step will be taken to ensure that a test of capacity is undertaken before a decision on a person's capacity to consent or not to consent to participation in research is taken. If the subject is not capable of self-consent, all efforts will be made to locate a legally acceptable representative to act on behalf of the subject. When a legally acceptable representative (e.g. consultee/proxy) is identified, their opinion will be sought about the potential participant's wishes and feelings in relation to the project, and whether he or she would have wanted to take part in the study.
Subjects are free to withdraw, or be withdrawn by their consultee/proxy if appropriate, at any point in the study, and they need not state a reason.
- Impact:
The CENTER-TBI project will contribute towards the overall goals of InTBIR, by identifying more effective and efficient treatment provision, thus improving outcome and reducing costs. The science in the project will provide novel information on disease processes, treatment, outcome, and prognosis in TBI, identifying new therapeutic targets and therapies; while the CENTER-TBI repositories will ensure opportunities for legacy research. Thus, the project has the potential to improve current health care and its delivery at both population and individual levels, deliver early scientific advances that could improve the care of patients with TBI, and provide a rich investment for future biomedical research.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 6 Months
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients presenting with traumatic brain injury. The data collection will be stratified upon enrolment into 3 clinical groups differentiated by clinical care path: * ER stratum: patients seen and discharged from the ER * Admission stratum: patients admitted to hospital but not to the ICU * ICU stratum: patients admitted directly to the ICU
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Clinical diagnosis of TBI
- Clinical indication for CT scan
- Presentation within 24 hours of injury
- Informed consent obtained according to local and national requirements
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Severe pre-existing neurological disorder that would confound outcome assessments
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE) at 6 Months
Time frame: 6 months
The Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale is a global scale for functional outcome that rates patient status into 8 categories, going from dead to good recovery. 1. Death 2. Vegetative sate 3. Lower severe disability 4. Upper severe disability 5. Lower moderate disability 6. Upper moderate disability - some disability but can potentially return to some form of employment 7. Lower good recovery - minor physical or mental defect 8. Upper good recovery - full recovery The 6-month GOSE score is available in 3804 patients (84%).
SF-12v2 Health Survey (Short-Form Health Survey With 12 Questions) at 6 Months
Time frame: 6 months
The SF-12v2 Health Survey uses 12 questions to measure functional health and well-being from the patient's point of view. The SF-12v2 at 6 months is available in 2300 patients.
6 Month Quality of Life in Brain Injury (Qolibri-OS) <52 (Impaired)
Time frame: 6 months
The Quality of Life in Brain Injury (Qolibri-OS) is a 6 item overall scale that provides a profile of health-related quality of life in domains typicality affected by brain injury, such as physical function, cognition, emotional status, ability to perform daily activities, personal life and social relationship, and satisfaction with current situation and future prospects. The QOLIBRI scores are reported on a 0-100 scale , where 0=worst possible quality of life and 100=best possible quality of life.
15 secondary outcomes
6 Month Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) <33 (Impaired)
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Rivermead Post Concussion Questionnaire <16 (Impaired)
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT) < 75 (Impaired)
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Timed up and go Test - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month JK Coma Recovery Scale - Revised <23 (Impaired)
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Trail Making Test (TMT) Part A - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Trail Making Test (TMT) Part B - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) PAL (Paired Associate Learning Task) - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) RTI (Reaction Time Task) - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) SWM (Spatial Working Memory Task) - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) RVP (Rapid Visual Information Processing Task) - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) SOC (Stockings of Cambridge Task) - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
6 Month Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) AST (Attention Switching Task ) - Impaired
Time frame: 6 months
Early (2-3 Weeks) MRI Imaging - Traumatic Intracranial Abnormalities
Time frame: Between 2-3 weeks after enrolment
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Nov 2022.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42426883Guglielmi A, Graziano F, Fornoni A, Mangili P, Picetti E, Baggiani M, Chesnut RM, Hawryluk GWJ, Newcombe VFJ, Rebora P, Galimberti S, Citerio G; CENTER-TBI investigators and participants. Association of lifesaving versus non-lifesaving extracranial surgery with long-term outcome after severe traumatic brain injury: a prospective CENTER-TBI cohort analysis. World J Emerg Surg. 2026 Jul 10. doi: 10.1186/s13017-026-00713-y. Online ahead of print.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41032948Jacob L, Castro J, Heslot C, Andelic N, Tenovuo O; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators (Appendix); Azouvi P. Absence from work in the 12 months following mild traumatic brain injury in Europe: a CENTER-TBI cohort study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2025 Nov;68(8):102017. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2025.102017. Epub 2025 Sep 30.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 39720422Kals M, Wilson L, Levey DF, Parodi L, Steyerberg EW, Richardson S, He F, Sun X, Jain S, Palotie A, Ripatti S, Rosand J, Manley GT, Maas AIR, Stein MB, Menon DK; Genetic Associations In Neurotrauma (GAIN) Consortium (with contribution from the CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI studies). Genetic vulnerability and adverse mental health outcomes following mild traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis of CENTER-TBI and TRACK-TBI cohorts. EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Dec 5;78:102956. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102956. eCollection 2024 Dec.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38877571Guglielmi A, Graziano F, Bogossian EG, Turgeon AF, Taccone FS, Citerio G; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Haemoglobin values, transfusion practices, and long-term outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury: a secondary analysis of CENTER-TBI. Crit Care. 2024 Jun 14;28(1):199. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-04980-6.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38771081Pisica D, Volovici V, Yue JK, van Essen TA, den Boogert HF, Vande Vyvere T, Haitsma I, Nieboer D, Markowitz AJ, Yuh EL, Steyerberg EW, Peul WC, Dirven CMF, Menon DK, Manley GT, Maas AIR, Lingsma HF; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Clinical and Imaging Characteristics, Care Pathways, and Outcomes of Traumatic Epidural Hematomas: A Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury Study. Neurosurgery. 2024 Nov 1;95(5):986-999. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002982. Epub 2024 May 21.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38669706Vreeburg RJG, Singh RD, van Erp IAM, Korhonen TK, Yue JK, Mee H, Timofeev I, Kolias A, Helmy A, Depreitere B, Moojen WA, Younsi A, Hutchinson P, Manley GT, Steyerberg EW, de Ruiter GCW, Maas AIR, Peul WC, van Dijck JTJM, den Boogert HF, Posti JP, van Essen TA; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Early versus delayed cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: a multicenter observational study within CENTER-TBI and Net-QuRe. J Neurosurg. 2024 Apr 26;141(4):895-907. doi: 10.3171/2024.1.JNS232172. Print 2024 Oct 1.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38528477Howe EI, Andelic N, Brunborg C, Zeldovich M, Helseth E, Skandsen T, Olsen A, Fure SCR, Theadom A, Rauen K, Madsen BA, Jacobs B, van der Naalt J, Tartaglia MC, Einarsen CE, Storvig G, Tronvik E, Tverdal C, von Steinbuchel N, Roe C, Hellstrom T; CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators. Frequency and predictors of headache in the first 12 months after traumatic brain injury: results from CENTER-TBI. J Headache Pain. 2024 Mar 25;25(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01751-0.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38062304Boerwinkle VL, Appavu B, Cediel EG, Erklaurer J, Lalgudi Ganesan S, Gibbons C, Hahn C, LaRovere KL, Moberg D, Natarajan G, Molteni E, Reuther WR, Slomine BS; Curing Coma Campaign, its Contributing Members. Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group in the Pediatric Population. Neurocrit Care. 2024 Feb;40(1):65-73. doi: 10.1007/s12028-023-01870-7. Epub 2023 Dec 7.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37682406Zeldovich M, Bockhop F, Covic A, Mueller I, Polinder S, Mikolic A, van der Vlegel M, von Steinbuechel N; CENTER-TBI participants and investigators. Factorial validity and comparability of the six translations of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire translations: results from the CENTER-TBI study. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2023 Sep 8;7(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s41687-023-00632-5.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37600483van Essen TA, van Erp IAM, Lingsma HF, Pisica D, Yue JK, Singh RD, van Dijck JTJM, Volovici V, Younsi A, Kolias A, Peppel LD, Heijenbrok-Kal M, Ribbers GM, Menon DK, Hutchinson PJA, Manley GT, Depreitere B, Steyerberg EW, Maas AIR, de Ruiter GCW, Peul WC; CENTER-TBI Investigators and Participants. Comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for traumatic acute subdural hematoma (CENTER-TBI): an observational cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Aug 9;63:102161. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102161. eCollection 2023 Sep.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37180469Lang L, Wang T, Xie L, Yang C, Skudder-Hill L, Jiang J, Gao G, Feng J. An independently validated nomogram for individualised estimation of short-term mortality risk among patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a modelling analysis of the CENTER-TBI China Registry Study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Apr 28;59:101975. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101975. eCollection 2023 May.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36527074Howe EI, Zeldovich M, Andelic N, von Steinbuechel N, Fure SCR, Borgen IMH, Forslund MV, Hellstrom T, Soberg HL, Sveen U, Rasmussen M, Kleffelgaard I, Tverdal C, Helseth E, Lovstad M, Lu J, Arango-Lasprilla JC, Tenovuo O, Azouvi P, Dawes H, Roe C; CENTER-TBI participants and investigators. Rehabilitation and outcomes after complicated vs uncomplicated mild TBI: results from the CENTER-TBI study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Dec 16;22(1):1536. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08908-0.
- CENTER - TBI websiteLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes
Related trials for Traumatic Brain Injury
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Epileptogenesis Project (TRACK-TBI EPI)
Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-traumatic Epilepsy
Enrolling by invitationPhase 1
Pilot Safety and Exploratory Efficacy of PSC-05 for the Treatment of Chronic Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
RecruitingObservational study
Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury
Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Nanopulse Laser Therapy
TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury)
RecruitingObservational study
Effect of Different Intravenous Fluids on Post-operative Chronic Subdural Hematoma Size and Recurrence
Chronic Subdural Hematoma
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Andrew Maas, MD, PhD study chair
Antwerp University Hospital / University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium
David Menon, MD, PhD study director
University of Cambridge, Addenbrookes hospital, Cambridge, UK
65 sites in 19 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Traumatic Brain Injury, run by University Hospital, Antwerp at 65 sites in 19 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Nov 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 65 sites in United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, France, Belgium and 14 more countries. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 25 Sep 2020). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE) at 6 Months (time frame: 6 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02210221, which also lists 34 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Nov 2022.