AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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

Other trials in United Kingdom

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

Other trials in Italy

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

Other trials in Netherlands

France5 sites
  • University Hospital of Grenoble

    Grenoble

  • Lille University Hospital

    Lille

  • University Hospital Nancy

    Nancy

  • APHP

    Paris

  • CHU Poitiers

    Poitiers

Other trials in France

Belgium4 sites
  • Antwerp University Hospital

    Edegem

  • University Hospitals Leuven

    Leuven

  • CHR Citadelle

    Liège

  • CHU Liege

    Liège

Other trials in Belgium

Germany4 sites
  • University Hospital Aachen

    Aachen

  • Charité Campus Virchow

    Berlin

  • University Hospital Heidelberg

    Heidelberg

  • Klinikum Ludwigsburg

    Ludwigsburg

Other trials in Germany

Spain4 sites
  • Vall d'Hebron University Hospital

    Barcelona

  • Cruces University Hospital

    Bilbao

  • Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre

    Madrid

  • Clínico Universitario de Valencia

    Valencia

Other trials in Spain

Latvia3 sites
  • Rezekne Hospital

    Rēzekne

  • Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital

    Riga

  • Riga Eastern Clinical University Hospital

    Riga

Other trials in Latvia

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

Other trials in Lithuania

Norway3 sites
  • Oslo University Hospital

    Oslo

  • University Hospital Northern Norway

    Tromsø

  • St Olavs Hospital/Norwegian University of science and technology

    Trondheim

Other trials in Norway

Austria2 sites
  • Innsbruck Medical University

    Innsbruck

  • Medical University Vienna

    Vienna

Other trials in Austria

Denmark2 sites
  • Region Hovedstaden Rigshospitalet

    Copenhagen

  • Odense University Hospital

    Odense

Other trials in Denmark

Finland2 sites
  • Helsinki University Central Hospital

    Helsinki

  • Turku University Hospital

    Turku

Other trials in Finland

Hungary2 sites
  • University of Pecs

    Pécs

  • University of Szeged

    Szeged

Other trials in Hungary

Israel2 sites
  • Rambam Medical Center

    Haifa

  • Hadassah-hebrew University Medical Center

    Jerusalem

Other trials in Israel

Sweden2 sites
  • Karolinska University Hospital

    Stockholm

  • Umea University Hospital

    Umeå

Other trials in Sweden

Romania1 site
  • Emergency County Hospital Timisoara

    Timișoara

Other trials in Romania

Serbia1 site
  • Clinical centre of Vojvodina

    Novi Sad

Other trials in Serbia

Switzerland1 site
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois

    Lausanne

Other trials in Switzerland

About this study

Official title: Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI)

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.
Read more

Specific aims

  1. To collect high quality clinical and epidemiological data with repositories for neuro-imaging, DNA, and serum from patients with TBI.
  2. To refine and improve outcome assessment and develop health utility indices for TBI.
  3. To develop multidimensional approaches to characterisation and prediction of TBI.
  4. To define patient profiles which predict efficacy of specific interventions ("Precision Medicine").
  5. To develop performance indicators for quality assurance and quality improvement in TBI care.
  6. 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.
  7. To develop an open database compatible with Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR).
  8. To intensify networking activities and international collaborations in TBI.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

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.

  1. 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.

    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%).

    Measured: 6 months

  2. 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

  3. 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)
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  1. First posted6 Aug 2014 (estimated)
  2. Study start19 Dec 2014
  3. Primary completion1 Sep 2018
  4. Study completion31 Mar 2021

Resources

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
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
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 42426883
  • Jacob 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 41032948
  • Kals 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 39720422
  • Guglielmi 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 38877571
  • Pisica 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 38771081
  • Vreeburg 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 38669706
  • Howe 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 38528477
  • Boerwinkle 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 38062304
  • Zeldovich 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 37682406
  • van 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 37600483
  • Lang 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 37180469
  • Howe 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 36527074
  • Rezoagli 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 36264365
  • Akerlund 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 35897070
  • Volovici 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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in