PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

BrainIT Group

Publications and source records attributed to BrainIT Group.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

BrainIT: a trans-national head injury monitoring research network.

BACKGROUND: Studies of therapeutic interventions and management strategies on head injured patients are difficult to undertake. BrainIT provides validated data for analysis available to centers that contribute data to allow post-hoc analysis and hypothesis testing. METHODS: Both physiological and intensive care management data are collected. Patient identification is eliminated prior to transfer of data to a central database in Glasgow. Requests for missing/ ambiguous data are sent back to the local center. Country coordinating centers provide advice, training, and assistance to centers and manage the data validation process. RESULTS: Currently 30 centers participate in the group. Data collection started in January 2004 and 242 patients have been recruited. Data validation tools were developed to ensure data accuracy and all analysis must be undertaken on validated data. CONCLUSION: BrainIT is an open, collaborative network that has been established with primary objectives of i) creating a core data set of information, ii) standardizing the collection methodology, iii) providing data collection tools, iv) creating and populating a data base for future analysis, and v) establishing data validation methodologies. Improved standards for multi-center data collection should permit the more accurate analysis of monitoring and management studies in head injured patients.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2005

Survey of traumatic brain injury management in European Brain-IT centres year 2001.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to obtain basic knowledge about the current local conditions and neurointensive care of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the new multi-centre collaborative BrainIT group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey comprised a background part on local policies (Part A), and a case study section (Part B). The information was gathered by questionnaire followed by telephone interviews. Twenty-three BrainIT centres participated in the survey and answers from two respondents were available from 18 of the sites. RESULTS: The average proportion of agreement between duplicate respondents was 0.778 (range 0.415-1.00). All BrainIT centres monitored ICP. The treatment protocols seem to have a pattern concerning escalation of treatment of intracranial hypertension: 1/ evacuation of mass lesions and head elevation; 2/ increased sedation and mannitol; 3/ hyperventilation; 4/ ventricular drainage; 5/ craniectomy and barbituates. CONCLUSIONS: There seemed to be an agreement on neurointensive care policies within the BrainIT group. The suggested order of treatment was generally in accordance with published guidelines although the suggested order and combinations of different treatments varied. Variation of treatment within the range of prescribed standards provides optimal conditions for an interesting future analysis of treatment and monitoring data in reality using the BrainIT database.

Brain Injuries↗
PubMed2005

The BrainIT Group: concept and current status 2004.

INTRODUCTION: An open collaborative international network has been established which aims to improve inter-centre standards for collection of high-resolution, neurointensive care data on patients with traumatic brain injury. The group is also working towards the creation of an open access, detailed and validated database that will be useful for hypothesis generation. In Part A, we describe the underlying concept of the group and it's aims and in Part B we describe the current status of the groups development. METHODS: Four group meetings funded by the EEC have enabled definition of a "Core Dataset" to be collected from all centres regardless of specific project aim. A form based feasibility study was conducted and a prospective data collection exercise of core data using PC and hand held computer based methods is in progress. FINDINGS: A core-dataset was defined and can be downloaded from the BrainIT web-site (go to "Core dataset" link at: www.brainit.org). A form based feasibility study was conducted showing the overall feasibility for collection of the core data elements was high. Software tools for collection of the core dataset have been developed. Currently, 130 patient's data from 16 European centres have been recruited to the joint database as part of an EEC funded proof of concept study. INTERPRETATION: The BrainIT network provides a more standardised and higher resolution data collection mechanism for research groups, organisations and the device industry to conduct multicentre trials of new health care technology in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Brain Injuries↗
PubMed2005

Accurate data collection for head injury monitoring studies: a data validation methodology.

BACKGROUND: BrainIT is a multi centre, European project, to collect high quality continuous data from severely head injured patients using a previously defined [6] core data set. This includes minute-by-minute physiological data and simultaneous treatment and management information. It is crucial that the data is correctly collected and validated. METHODS: Minute-by-minute physiological monitoring data is collected from the bedside monitors. Demographic and clinical information, intensive care management and secondary insult management data, are collected using a handheld computer. Data is transferred from the handheld device to a local computer where it is reviewed and anonymised before being sent electronically, with the physiological data, to the central database in Glasgow. Automated computer tools highlight missing or ambiguous data. A request is then sent to the contributing centre where the data is amended and returned to Glasgow. Of the required data elements 20% are randomly selected for validation against original documentation along with the actual number of specific episodic events during a known period. This will determine accuracy and the percentage of missing data for each record. CONCLUSION: Advances in patient care require an improved evidence base. For accurate, consistent and repeatable data collection, robust mechanisms are required which should enhance the reliability of clinical trials, assessment of management protocols and equipment evaluations.

Brain Injuries↗
PubMed2004

Bench test assessment of the new Raumedic Neurovent-P ICP sensor: a technical report by the BrainIT group.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, fiberberoptic and piezo-electric ICP probes are often used for measuring intracranial pressure (ICP). A number of similar technologies, although performing well in bench test studies, have been shown to exhibit unacceptable zero drift, fragility or both during trials conducted under clinical conditions. Recently, a new technology has become available, the Neurovent-P (Raumedic AG + CO, Raumedic, Germany). As a pre-requisite for a clinical trial, we have conducted and report on bench test studies to confirm the manufacturer's long term zero-drift performance for this technology. METHOD: In a test rig static tests (recording of 20 mmHg pressure) and dynamic tests, ranging from 5 to 50 mmHg have been performed. FINDINGS: 10 ICP probes have been tested for a total of 60 days. All the catheters, after the connection with the ICU monitor displayed a static pressure of 0 +/- 1 mmHg and did not required pre-insertion alteration. At five days, mean zero drift was 0.6 +/- 0.9 mmHg. Overall, zero drift ranged from 0 to 2 mmHg. At a fixed static pressure of 20 mmHg, the mean recorded value was 20.6 +/- 0.8 mmHg, ranging from 19 to 23 mmHg. A regression analysis of the relationship between the applied pressure and the recorded pressure during the dynamic tests of the 10 catheters yielded a correlation coefficient R2 of 0.997. Applying the Altman and Bland method to assess the bias and confidence limits for the Raumedic catheter responses during the dynamic tests against the applied gold-standard hydrostatic column pressures, the average bias of -0.66 +/- 0.85 mmHg, with 95% CLs of -2 mmHg and 1 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: Mean zero drift, after five days, was very small and long-term continuous recording of a stable pressure was very precise. The response at dynamic tests, i.e. the changes of pressure in a wide range, was excellent. The average bias of the Raumedic catheter compared with the hydrostatic column is very small. After this bench test, the next and most critical step will be to conduct a trial of this promising technology under more demanding clinical environment.

Calibration↗
PubMed2003

The BrainIT group: concept and core dataset definition.

INTRODUCTION: An open collaborative international network has been established which aims to improve inter-centre standards for collection of high-resolution, neurointensive care data on patients with traumatic brain injury. The group is also working towards the creation of an open access, detailed and validated database that will be useful for post-hoc hypothesis testing. In Part A, the underlying concept, the group coordination structure, membership guidelines and database access and publication criteria are described. Secondly, in part B, we describe a set of meetings funded by the EEC that allowed us to define a "Core Dataset" and we present the results of a feasibility exercise for collection of this core dataset. METHODS: Four group meetings funded by the EEC have enabled definition of a "Core Dataset" to be collected from all centres regardless of specific project aim. A paper based pilot collection of data was conducted to determine the feasibility for collection of the core dataset. Specially designed forms to collect the core dataset demographic and clinical information as well as sample the time-series data elements were distributed by both email and standard mail to 22 BrainIT centres. A deadline of two months was set to receive completed forms back from centres. A pilot data collection of minute by minute physiological monitoring data was also performed. FINDINGS: A core-dataset was defined and can be downloaded from the BrainIT web-site (go to "Core dataset" link at: www.brainit.org). Eighteen centres (82%) returned completed forms by the set deadline. Overall the feasibility for collection of the core data elements was high with only 10 of the 64 questions (16%) showing missing data. Of those 10 fields with missing data, the average number of centres not responding was 12% and the median 6%. An SQL database to hold the data has been designed and is being tested. Software tools for collection of the core dataset have been developed. Ethics approval has been granted for collection of multi-centre data as part of a pilot data collection study. INTERPRETATION: The BrainIT network provides a more standardised and higher resolution data collection mechanism for research groups, organisations and the device industry to conduct multi-centre trials of new health care technology in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Brain Injuries↗