The Therapy Intensity Level scale for traumatic brain injury: clinimetric assessment on neuro-monitored patients across 52 European intensive care units ======================================================================================================================================================== * Shubhayu Bhattacharyay * Erta Beqiri * Patrick Zuercher * Lindsay Wilson * Ewout W Steyerberg * David W Nelson * Andrew I R Maas * David K Menon * Ari Ercole * CENTER-TBI investigators and participants ## Abstract The Therapy Intensity Level (TIL) scale and its abridged version (TIL(Basic)) are used to record the intensity of daily management for raised intracranial pressure (ICP) after traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, it is uncertain: (1) whether TIL is valid across the wide variation in modern ICP treatment strategies, (2) if TIL performs better than its predecessors, (3) how TIL’s component therapies contribute to the overall score, and (4) whether TIL(Basic) may capture sufficient information. We aimed to answer these questions by assessing TIL on a contemporary population of ICP-monitored TBI patients (*n*=873) in 52 intensive care units (ICUs) across 18 European countries and Israel. From the observational, prospective Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study, we extracted first-week daily TIL scores (TIL24), ICP values, physician-based impressions of aberrant ICP, clinical markers of injury severity, and six-month functional outcome scores. We evaluated the construct and criterion validity of TIL against that of its predecessors, an unweighted version of TIL, and TIL(Basic). We calculated the median score of each TIL component therapy for each total score as well as associations between each component score and markers of injury severity. Moreover, we calculated the information coverage of TIL by TIL(Basic), defined by the mutual information of TIL and TIL(Basic) divided by the entropy of TIL. The statistical validity measures of TIL were significantly greater or similar to those of alternative scales, and TIL integrated the widest range of modern ICP treatments. First-week median TIL24 (TILmedian) outperformed first-week maximum TIL24 (TILmax) in discriminating refractory intracranial hypertension (RIC) during ICU stay, and the thresholds which maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity for RIC detection were TILmedian≥7.5 (sensitivity: 81% [95% CI: 77–87%], specificity: 72% [95% CI: 70–75%]) and TILmax≥14 (sensitivity: 68% [95% CI: 62–74%], specificity: 79% [95% CI: 77–81%]). The sensitivity-specificity-optimising TIL24 threshold for detecting surgical ICP control was TIL24≥9 (sensitivity: 87% [95% CI: 83–91%], specificity: 74% [95% CI: 72–76%]). The median component scores for each TIL24 reflected a credible staircase approach to treatment intensity escalation, from head positioning to surgical ICP control, as well as considerable variability in the use of cerebrospinal fluid drainage and decompressive craniectomy. First-week maximum TIL(Basic) (TIL(Basic)max) suffered from a strong ceiling effect and could not replace TILmax. TIL(Basic)24 and first-week median TIL(Basic) (TIL(Basic)median) could be a suitable replacement for TIL24 and TILmedian, respectively (up to 33% [95% CI: 31–35%] information coverage). Numerical ranges were derived for categorising TIL24 scores into TIL(Basic)24 scores. Our results validate the TIL scale across a spectrum of ICP management and monitoring approaches and support its use as an intermediate outcome after TBI. ## Introduction Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) may impede the potential recovery of injured brain tissue and damage initially unaffected brain regions.1 Therefore, for TBI patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), clinicians often monitor ICP and may apply a wide range of ICP-reducing treatments.2 The selective use of these treatments typically follows a staircase approach, in which therapeutic intensity – defined by the risk and complexity of each treatment – is incrementally escalated until adequate ICP control is achieved.3–5 Thus, therapeutic intensity must be considered when interpreting ICP. Even if two TBI patients have comparable ICP readings, a difference in the intensity of their ICP-directed therapies likely indicates a difference in pathophysiological severity. Several versions of the Therapy Intensity Level (TIL) scale have been developed to rate and compare the overall intensity of ICP management amongst TBI patients. TIL scales assign a relative intensity score to each ICP-targeting therapy and return either the sum or the maximum value of the scores of simultaneously applied therapies. In 1987, Maset *et al.* produced the original, 15-point TIL scale (TIL(1987)) to be assessed once every four hours.6 In 2006, Shore *et al.* published the 38-point Paediatric Intensity Level of Therapy (PILOT) scale,7 revising TIL(1987) to: (1) represent updated paediatric TBI management practices, (2) have a more practical, daily assessment frequency, and (3) resolve a statistical ceiling effect. In 2011, the interagency TBI Common Data Elements (CDE) scheme developed the most recent, 38-point TIL scale as well as a condensed, four-point TIL(Basic) scale through expert consensus.8 The TIL scale revised PILOT to integrate additional ICP-directed therapies and to be applicable to adult TBI management. Moreover, TIL(Basic) was proposed as a simple, categorical measure to use when full TIL assessment would be infeasible. Since Zuercher *et al.* reported the validity and reliability of TIL in a two-centre cohort (*n*=31) in 2016,9 the scale has become a popular research metric for quantifying ICP treatment intensity.10–13 However, several critical questions regarding TIL remain unanswered. It is uncertain whether the validity of TIL, reported in a relatively small population, can be generalised across the wide variation of ICP management, monitoring, and data acquisition (i.e., intermittent chart recording or high-resolution storage14) strategies practised in contemporary intensive care.11,12,15,16 Moreover, the scoring configuration of TIL has never been tested against alternatives (e.g., TIL(1987) and PILOT), and the relative contribution of TIL’s component therapies towards the total score is unknown. It is unclear how TIL(Basic) numerically relates to TIL and if the former captures the essential information of the latter. In this work, we aimed to answer these questions by performing a comprehensive assessment of TIL on a large, contemporary population of ICP-monitored TBI patients across European ICUs. ## Materials and Methods ### Therapy intensity level (TIL) and alternative scales TIL refers to the 38-point scale developed by the CDE scheme for TBI.8 The domain or construct (i.e., targeted concept of a scale) of TIL is the therapeutic intensity of ICP management. The TIL scale has twelve items, each representing a distinct ICP-targeting treatment from one of eight modalities, as defined in Table 1. TIL was developed by an international expert panel which discussed: (1) the relevant ICP-treatment modalities of modern intensive care, (2) the relative risk and efficacy of individual therapies to derive scores, and (3) practical and statistical limitations of previous TIL scores.8 In this way, TIL is a formative measurement model, in which the construct (i.e., ICP treatment intensity) is not unidimensional but rather defined by the combination of items (i.e., ICP-targeting treatments).17 TIL was shown to have high interrater and intrarater reliability by Zuercher *et al*.9 If a decompressive craniectomy was performed as a last resort for refractory intracranial hypertension, its score was included in the day of the operation and in every subsequent day of ICU stay. TIL scores can be calculated as frequently as clinically desired. For our analysis, we calculated the following TIL scores from the first seven days of ICU stay: * TIL24, the daily TIL score based on the sum of the highest scores per item per calendar day, * TILmax, the maximum TIL24 over the first week of a patient’s ICU stay, * TILmedian, the median TIL24 over the first week of a patient’s ICU stay. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/T1) Table 1. Scoring configurations for TIL and alternative scales We also calculated scores from four other therapeutic intensity scales to compare with TIL scores. The 21-point, unweighted TIL (uwTIL) scale replaces each sub-item score in TIL with its ascending rank index (i.e., 1, 2, 3, …) within each item (Table 1). The four-point TIL(Basic) was also developed by the CDE scheme for TBI and takes the maximum score, from one to four, amongst all included sub-items over the calendar day.8 We adapted the 38-point PILOT7 and 15-point TIL(1987) scales6 with minor adjustments to fit the items of TIL with a daily assessment frequency. PILOT was also shown to have high interrater and intrarater reliability by Shore *et al*.7 For the four alternative scales, daily (i.e., uwTIL24, TIL(Basic)24, PILOT24, and TIL(1987)24), maximum (i.e., uwTILmax, TIL(Basic)max, PILOTmax, and TIL(1987)max), and median (i.e., uwTILmedian, TIL(Basic)median, PILOTmedian, and TIL(1987)median) scores were calculated the same way as were TIL24, TILmax, and TILmedian, respectively. ### Study design and populations Our study population was prospectively recruited for the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) core and high-resolution studies. CENTER-TBI is a longitudinal, observational cohort study ([NCT02210221](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT02210221&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom)) involving 65 medical centres across 18 European countries and Israel. Patients were recruited between 19 December 2014 and 17 December 2017 if they met the following criteria: (1) presentation within 24 hours of a TBI, (2) clinical indication for a CT scan, and (3) no severe pre-existing neurological disorder. In accordance with relevant laws of the European Union and the local country, ethical approval was obtained for each site, and written informed consent by the patient or legal representative was documented electronically. The list of sites, ethical committees, approval numbers, and approval dates can be found online: [https://www.center-tbi.eu/project/ethical-approval](https://www.center-tbi.eu/project/ethical-approval). The project objectives and design of CENTER-TBI have been described in detail previously.18,19 In this work, we applied the following inclusion criteria in addition to those of CENTER-TBI (Figure 1): (1) primary admission to the ICU, (2) at least 16 years old at ICU admission, (3) invasive ICP monitoring, (4) no decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies (WLST) on the first day of ICU stay, and (5) daily assessment of TIL. ![Fig. 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F1.medium.gif) [Fig. 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F1) Fig. 1. Flow diagram for patient enrolment and validation population assignment Abbreviations: CENTER-TBI=Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI, ICP=intracranial pressure, ICPEH=end-hour ICP, ICPHR=high-resolution ICP, ICU=intensive care unit, TBI=traumatic brain injury, TIL=Therapy Intensity Level scale,8,9 WLST=withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies. For our sub-studies evaluating the association between TIL and ICP-derived values, we created two sub-populations based on the type of ICP values available. Patients with end-hour ICP (ICPEH) values, which were recorded by clinicians at the end of every other hour, constituted the TIL-ICPEH sub-population. Patients with high-resolution ICP values (ICPHR), which were automatically stored with monitoring software, constituted the TIL-ICPHR sub-population. All patients in the TIL-ICPHR sub-population were also members of the TIL-ICPEH sub-population (Figure 1). ### Data collection Data for the CENTER-TBI study was collected through the QuesGen electronic case report form system (QuesGen Systems Inc, Burlingame, CA, USA) hosted on the International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility (INCF) platform (INCF, Stockholm, Sweden). All data for the validation populations, except high-resolution signals, were extracted from the CENTER-TBI core study19 (v3.0, ICU stratum) using Opal database software.20 #### ICP management data for TIL calculation Since TIL24 was found to be a reliable summary of hourly TIL,9 clinical data pertinent to the component items of TIL (i.e., ICP-guided treatments, Table 1) were recorded daily through the first week of ICU stay. We extracted all daily TIL item values for our population, and calculated TIL24, uwTIL24, TIL(Basic)24, PILOT24, and TIL(1987)24 as defined in Table 1. For patients who underwent WLST, we only extracted TIL item information from before the documented date of WLST decision. #### ICPEH and related values End-hour ICP (ICPEH), systolic blood pressure (SBPEH), and diastolic blood pressure (DBPEH) were recorded by clinicians every two hours for the TIL-ICPEH sub-population. Mean arterial pressure (MAPEH) was calculated as MAPEH = (SBPEH + 2DBPEH)/3, and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPEH) was calculated as CPPEH = MAPEH – ICPEH. From ICPEH and CPPEH, we calculated the following values: * ICP24 or CPP24, the mean ICP or CPP value over a calendar day of ICU stay, * ICPmax or CPPmin, the maximum ICP24 or minimum CPP24 value over the first week of a patient’s ICU stay, * ICPmedian or CPPmedian, the median ICP24 or CPP24 value over the first week of a patient’s ICU stay. #### ICPHR and related values High-resolution signals were collected using either ICM+ software (Cambridge Enterprise Ltd, Cambridge, UK; [http://icmplus.neurosurg.cam.ac.uk](http://icmplus.neurosurg.cam.ac.uk)), Moberg CNS monitor (Moberg Research Inc, Ambler, PA, USA; [https://www.moberg.com](https://www.moberg.com)), or both. Blood pressure was obtained through arterial lines connected to pressure transducers. High-resolution ICP (ICPHR) was acquired from either an intraparenchymal strain gauge probe (Codman ICP MicroSensor, Codman & Shurtleff Inc, Raynham, MA, USA), a parenchymal fibre optic pressure sensor (Camino ICP Monitor, Integra Life Sciences, Plainsboro, NJ, USA; [https://www.integralife.com/](https://www.integralife.com/)), or an external ventricular drain. Detailed data collection and pre-processing methods (i.e., artefact cleaning and down-sampling to ten-second averaged time series) applied to high resolution signals in our study have been described previously.21 Ten-second mean ICP (ICPHR_10sec) and CPP (CPPHR_10sec) time-series were retrieved for this analysis, and, from ICPHR_10sec and CPPHR_10s, we calculated ICP24/CPP24, ICPmax/CPPmin, and ICPmedian/CPPmedian as described above. #### Physician impressions Attending ICU physicians were asked to record their daily concerns with the patient’s ICP and CPP, separately, on a scale from one (not concerned) to ten (most concerned). Moreover, on each patient’s ICU discharge summary, physicians were asked to record whether the patient experienced refractory intracranial hypertension during his or her ICU stay. Refractory intracranial hypertension was defined as recurrent, sustained (i.e., of at least ten minutes) increases of ICP above 20 mmHg despite medical ICP management. We extracted the daily ICP/CPP concern ratings and refractory intracranial hypertension impressions which coincided with the ICU stays of our population. #### Baseline characteristics, prognosis, and outcome We extracted baseline demographic characteristics, Marshall CT classifications,22 and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)23 scores from ICU admission.24 We also extracted Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended (GOSE) functional outcome scores at six months post-injury,25 with imputation of missing values as previously described.26 Finally, we extracted ordinal functional outcome prognosis scores, calculated from a tokenised embedding of all available clinical information in the first 24 hours of ICU stay, as described previously.27 ### Validation We appraised the validity of TIL according to recommendations of best practice from clinimetric literature.28 Based on the identified domain of TIL, we evaluated the construct and criterion validities of TIL. Our qualitative and quantitative assessments of TIL were performed against those of alternative scoring configurations (Table 1) for comparison. #### Construct validity Construct validity is the extent to which a clinical scale matches expectations of associations with parameters within or outside the identified domain. Construct validity is further broken down into convergent validity (i.e., associations with similar constructs), discriminant validity (i.e., associations with divergent constructs), and differentiation by known groups. In this work, statistical associations between study variables were measured with: * Spearman’s correlation coefficients (*ρ*) for static (i.e., measured once) variables, * repeated measures correlation coefficients (*rrm*)29 – interpreted as within-individual strength of association – for longitudinal (i.e., measured over time) variables, * linear mixed effects regression (LMER) coefficients (*βLMER*) of daily scale scores (e.g., TIL24) when regressing ICP24 or CPP24 on daily scale scores and the day of ICU stay (DayICU), accounting for inter-patient variability with random intercepts. Therefore, *βLMER* were interpreted as the expected difference in ICP24 or CPP24 per unit increase of daily scale score, independent of time since ICU admission or inter-patient variation. For convergent validity, we expected therapeutic intensity to correlate at least mildly (i.e., |*ρ*|≥0.2, |*rrm*|≥0.2, |*βLMER*|>0) with markers of injury severity (i.e., baseline GCS and baseline outcome prognoses), functional outcome (i.e., six-month GOSE), clinical concerns of ICP status, and ICP itself. Accordingly, we calculated: (1) *ρ* values between TILmax and GCS, ordinal prognosis scores, GOSE, and ICPmax, (2) *ρ* values between TILmedian and GCS, ordinal prognosis scores, GOSE, and ICPmedian, (3) *rrm* values between TIL24 and physician concern of ICP and ICP24, and (4) *βLMER* of TIL24 when regressing ICP24 on DayICU and TIL24 (i.e., ICP24∼DayICU+TIL24), accounting for inter-patient variability with random intercepts. For discriminant validity, we expected therapeutic intensity to be more strongly correlated with ICP and physician concerns of ICP than with CPP and physician concerns of CPP, respectively. Even though CPP control through fluid loading or vasopressor therapy is a component modality of TIL (Table 1), we expected TIL to capture ICP management (i.e., the construct) more accurately than CPP management. We compared: (1) *ρ* values of TILmax vs. CPPmin to those of TILmax vs. ICPmax, (2) *ρ* values of TILmedian vs. CPPmedian to those of TILmedian vs. ICPmedian, (3) *rrm* values of TIL24 vs. CPP24 to those of TIL24 vs. ICP24, and (4) the *βLMER* of TIL24 when regressing CPP24∼DayICU+TIL24 to the *βLMER* of TIL24 when regressing ICP24∼DayICU+TIL24. For differentiation by known groups, we expected TILmax and TILmedian to effectively discriminate patients who experienced refractory intracranial hypertension during ICU stay from those who did not. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), which, in our case, was interpreted as the probability of a randomly selected patient with refractory intracranial hypertension having a higher TILmax or TILmedian score than one without it. We also compared the AUCs of TILmax and TILmedian to ICPmax and ICPmedian and determined the sensitivity and specificity of refractory intracranial hypertension detection at each threshold of TILmax and TILmedian. #### Criterion validity Criterion (or concurrent) validity is the degree to which there is an association between a clinical scale and other scales measuring the same construct, particularly a gold standard assessment. Since there is no extant “gold standard” for assessing ICP management intensity, we tested the concurrent criterion validity of TIL by calculating its associations with its predecessors (i.e., PILOT and TIL(1987)), mindful of their limitations as described above. More specifically, we calculated: (1) *ρ* values between TILmax and prior scale maximum scores (i.e., PILOTmax and TIL(1987)max), (2) *ρ* values between TILmedian and prior scale median scores (i.e., PILOTmedian and TIL(1987)median), and (3) *rrm* between TIL24 and prior scale daily scores (i.e., PILOT24 and TIL(1987)24). ### Component item analysis We evaluated inter-item (i.e., inter-treatment) and adjusted item-total associations of TIL24, uwTIL24, PILOT24, and TIL(1987)24 by calculating *rrm* values. Item-total correlations were adjusted by subtracting the tested item score from the total score prior to calculating the correlation. We measured Cronbach’s alpha (*α*) to assess internal reliability amongst scale items at each day of ICU stay. Moreover, we calculated the median score contribution of each item per total TIL24 score. The association between each TIL24 item score and ICP24, CPP24, physician concern of ICP, and physician concern of CPP was calculated with *rrm* values. Finally, we trained LMER models regressing ICP24 and CPP24 on all TIL items (with categorical dummy encoding) and DayICU concurrently. The *βLMER* values from these models were interpreted as the average change in ICP24 or CPP24 associated with each treatment when accounting for all other ICP-guided treatments, time since ICU admission, and inter-patient variability with random intercepts. ### TIL(Basic) information coverage We examined the distributions of TIL(Basic)24 per TIL24 and TIL24 per TIL(Basic)24 to derive thresholds for categorising TIL24 into TIL(Basic)24. Moreover, we calculated the information coverage (IC) of TIL(Basic) by dividing the mutual information (MI) of TIL(Basic) and TIL by the entropy of TIL. IC was calculated with TIL(Basic)24 and TIL24 for days one through seven of ICU stay, with TIL(Basic)max and TILmax, and with TIL(Basic)median and TILmedian. ### Statistical analysis #### Multiple imputation of missing values Five of the static study variables had missing values for some of the patients in our study: GCS, GOSE, baseline prognosis scores, Marshall CT classifications, and refractory intracranial hypertension status. We assessed the patterns of missingness (Supplementary Figure S1) and multiply imputed (*m*=100) these variables with independent, stochastic predictive mean matching functions using the *mice* package30 (v3.9.0). We assumed these variables to be missing-at-random (MAR) (as previously reported on CENTER-TBI data31) and supported this assumption by training imputation models on all study measures as well as correlated auxiliary variables (e.g., raised ICP during ICU stay). For daily longitudinal study variables, we considered a value to be missing if the patient was still in the ICU and WLST had not been decided on or before that day. We assessed the longitudinal patterns of missingness (Supplementary Figure S2) and multiply imputed (*m*=100) these variables with the multivariate, time-series algorithm from the *Amelia II* package32 (v1.7.6) over the first week of ICU stay. The algorithm exploits both between-variable and within-variable correlation structures over time to stochastically impute missing time series values in independently trained runs. We validated the MAR assumption by identifying characteristics significantly associated with longitudinal variable missingness (Supplementary Table S1) and included auxiliary information associated with value missingness (e.g., reasons for stopping ICP monitoring) in the imputation model. #### Statistical inference We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for *ρ*, *rrm*, *βLMER*, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, *α*, and IC values using bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples of unique patients. For each resample, one of the 100 missing value imputations was randomly chosen. Therefore, confidence intervals represented the uncertainty due to patient resampling and missing value imputation. #### Code All statistical analyses were performed in Python (v3.8.2), and all visualisations were created in R (v4.2.3). All scripts used in this study are publicly available on GitHub: [https://github.com/sbhattacharyay/CENTER-TBI_TIL](https://github.com/sbhattacharyay/CENTER-TBI_TIL). ## Results ### Study population Of the 4,509 patients available for analysis in the CENTER-TBI core study, 873 patients from 52 ICUs met the additional inclusion criteria of this work. Amongst them, 837 constituted the TIL-ICPEH sub-population and 259 constituted the TIL-ICPHR sub-population (Figure 1). Summary characteristics of the overall population as well as those of the TIL-ICPEH and TIL-ICPHR sub-populations are detailed in Table 2. Apart from two of the prognosis scores pertaining to the probability of returning to pre-injury life roles (i.e., Pr(GOSE>5) and Pr(GOSE>6)), none of the tested characteristics were significantly different between patients in the TIL-ICPHR sub-population and those outside of it (Table 2). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/T2) Table 2. Summary characteristics of study validation populations The median ICU stay duration of our population was 14 days (IQR: 7.8–23 days), and 83% (*n*=726) stayed through at least seven calendar days. At each day of ICU stay, less than 2.4% of the expected TIL scores were missing (Supplementary Figure S2). Each TIL component item (Table 1) is represented by at least 17% (*n*=147, intracranial surgery) and each sub-item is represented by at least 4.9% (*n*=43, high-dose mannitol) of the population (Supplementary Table S2). The distributions of TILmax, TILmedian, and TIL24, juxtaposed against the scores of alternative scales (Table 1), are displayed in Figure 2. The distributions of TIL and PILOT were visually similar, and TIL(Basic)max had a strong ceiling effect (i.e., 57% of the population had the maximum score). Whilst there was no significant difference in TIL24 distribution over the first seven days, most patients had their highest TIL24 (i.e., TILmax) soon after ICU admission (median: day two, IQR: days one– three). The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (*ρ*) between TILmax and TILmedian was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77–0.82), and the median TILmedian:TILmax ratio was 0.65 (IQR: 0.45– 0.80). ![Fig. 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F2.medium.gif) [Fig. 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F2) Fig. 2. Distributions of TIL and alternative scales Abbreviations: ICU=intensive care unit, PILOT=Paediatric Intensity Level of Therapy scale,7 TIL=Therapy Intensity Level scale,8,9 TIL(1987)=original Therapy Intensity Level scale published in 1987,6 TIL(Basic)=condensed TIL scale,8 uwTIL=unweighted TIL scale in which sub-item scores are replaced by the ascending rank index within the item. The numeric definition of each scale is listed in Table 1. (**A**) Distributions of maximum scores of TIL (i.e., TILmax) and alternative scales (i.e., uwTILmax, TIL(Basic)max, PILOTmax, and TIL(1987)max) over the first week of ICU stay. (**B**) Distribution of median scores of TIL (i.e., TILmedian) and alternative scales (i.e., uwTILmedian, TIL(Basic)median, PILOTmedian, and TIL(1987)median) over the first week of ICU stay. (**C**) Distributions of daily scores of TIL (i.e., TIL24) and alternative scales (i.e., uwTIL24, TIL(Basic)24, PILOT24, and TIL(1987)24) over the first week of ICU stay. ### Validation of TIL The 95% CIs of *ρ* values, repeated measures correlation coefficients (*rrm*), and linear mixed effect regression coefficients (*βLMER*) of TIL with other study measures are visualised in Figure 3. Both TILmax and TILmedian had mildly negative correlations (−0.26<*ρ*mean<-0.19) with baseline GCS, six-month GOSE, and functional outcome prognoses (Figure 3A–B). The within-individual association of TIL24 with physician concerns of ICP was moderately positive (*rrm=*0.35 [95% CI: 0.31–0.38]) and significantly higher than that of TIL(Basic)24 (Figure 3C). The association between ICPmedian and TILmedian was moderately positive (0.35<*ρ*mean<0.45) with both ICPEH and ICPHR values, and the association between ICPmax and TILmax was moderately positive (*ρ=*0.41 [95% CI: 0.33– 0.46]) with ICPEH values. The ICPmax vs. TILmax correlation was not significant (*ρ=*0.01 [95% CI: −0.16–0.17]) with ICPHR values; however, without imputing missing ICPHR values, the *ρ* was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.35–0.50). This suggests that the longitudinal missingness of ICPHR (Supplementary Figure S2) for our sample size made the ICPmax estimation significantly imprecise. Moreover, the within-individual association with ICP24 was either weak or not significant for any daily scale score according to *rrm* (Figure 3C) and *βLMER* (Figure 3D) values. On average, a single point increase in TIL24 was associated with a 0.22 (95% CI: 0.15–0.30) mmHg increase in daily mean ICPEH and a 0.19 (95% CI: −0.06–0.43) mmHg increase in daily mean ICPHR. These results mostly affirm the convergent validity of TIL but highlight the broad intra-patient variability between ICP and therapeutic intensity. From the distribution of ICP24 values at each TIL24 score (Figure 4A), we observed both considerable ICP24 overlap across each TIL24 score and an overall positive relationship between TIL24 and ICP24, particularly for TIL24≥8. ![Fig. 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F3.medium.gif) [Fig. 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F3) Fig. 3. Associations of TIL and alternative scales with other clinical measures Abbreviations: DayICU=variable representing day (from 1 to 7) of ICU stay, EH=end-hour, CPP=cerebral perfusion pressure, GCS=Glasgow Coma Scale at ICU admission, GOSE=Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at six months post-injury, HR=high-resolution, ICP=intracranial pressure, ICU=intensive care unit, PILOT=Paediatric Intensity Level of Therapy scale,7 Pr(GOSE>•)=“probability of GOSE greater than • at six months post-injury” as previously calculated from the first 24 hours of admission,27 TIL=Therapy Intensity Level scale,8,9 TIL(1987)=original Therapy Intensity Level scale published in 1987,6 TIL(Basic)=condensed TIL scale,8 uwTIL=unweighted TIL scale in which sub-item scores are replaced by the ascending rank index within the item. The numeric definition of each scale is listed in Table 1, and the calculation of daily (e.g., TIL24), maximum (e.g., TILmax), and median (e.g., TILmedian) scores are described in the Methods. The bars represent 95% confidence intervals derived from bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples of unique patients over 100 missing value imputations. (**A**) Spearman’s correlation coefficients (*ρ*) between maximum scale scores over first week of ICU stay (i.e., TILmax, uwTILmax, TIL(Basic)max, PILOTmax, and TIL(1987)max) and other clinical measures. (**B**) Spearman’s correlation coefficients (*ρ*) between median scale scores over first week of ICU stay (i.e., TILmedian, uwTILmedian, TIL(Basic)median, PILOTmedian, and TIL(1987)median) and other clinical measures. (**C**) Repeated measures correlation coefficients (*rrm*, from −1 to 1) are interpreted as the strength and direction of association between two variables after accounting for inter-patient variation. (**D**) Linear mixed effects model coefficients (*βLMER*) are interpreted as the expected difference in dependent variable (e.g., EH ICP24) per unit increase of daily scale score (e.g., TIL24) after accounting for time since ICU admission (i.e., DayICU) and inter-patient variation. ![Fig 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F4.medium.gif) [Fig 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F4) Fig 4. Distributions of daily intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure means per daily TIL score Abbreviations: CPP=cerebral perfusion pressure, CPP24=mean CPP over calendar day, DayICU=variable representing day (from 1 to 7) of ICU stay, EH=end-hour, HR=high-resolution, ICP=intracranial pressure, ICP24=mean ICP over calendar day, TIL=Therapy Intensity Level scale,(8,9) TIL24=TIL score of calendar day, TIL-ICPEH=end-hour ICP sub-population, TIL-ICPHR=high-resolution ICP sub-population. The values in each panel are the linear mixed effects model coefficients (*βLMER*) of TIL24 with 95% confidence intervals derived from bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples of unique patients over 100 missing value imputations. The width of violin plots is scaled for each population, but the width of the points inside them demonstrates relative frequency across the populations. The violin plots do not encompass outliers based on 1.5 times the interquartile range. (**A**) Distributions of ICP24 vs. TIL24 for both sub-populations. (**B**) Distributions of CPP24 vs. TIL24 for both sub-populations. The correlation between TIL and both prior scales (i.e., PILOT and TIL(1987)) was positively strong for maximum, median, and daily scores (Supplementary Figure S3), establishing the criterion validity of TIL. According to 95% CIs, the association of TIL with prior scales was stronger than that of uwTIL or TIL(Basic) (Supplementary Figure S3). According to *ρ*, *rrm*, and *βLMER* values (Figure 3), the associations of TIL with CPP and of TIL with physician concerns of CPP were weaker than or not significantly different from the corresponding associations with ICP. Moreover, the trend of CPP24 distributions over different TIL24 scores is not as visually apparent as that of ICP24 distributions over different TIL24 scores (Figure 4B). These results support the discriminant validity of TIL. In our population, 157 patients (18% of 864 assessed) were reported to experience refractory intracranial hypertension during ICU stay. TILmax correctly discriminated these patients from the others 81% (95% CI: 78–84%) of the time (Figure 5A), and TILmedian did so 83% (95% CI: 80–86%) of the time (Figure 5B). This performance of TIL was significantly greater than or similar to that of all alternative scales (Figure 5A–B). Additionally, TILmedian had significantly greater discrimination performance than ICPmax (Figure 5C) and ICPmedian (Figure 5D), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of refractory intracranial hypertension detection at each threshold of TILmax, TILmedian, TIL(Basic)max, and TIL(Basic)median are listed in Supplementary Table S3 and visualised in Figure 5C–D. The thresholds which maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity were TILmax≥14 (sensitivity: 68% [95% CI: 62–74%], specificity: 79% [95% CI: 77–81%]) and TILmedian≥7.5 (sensitivity: 81% [95% CI: 77–87%], specificity: 72% [95% CI: 70–75%]) (Table 3). ![Fig 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F5.medium.gif) [Fig 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F5) Fig 5. Discrimination of refractory intracranial hypertension status by TIL and alternative scale summary scores Abbreviations: AUC=area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, EH=end-hour, HR=high-resolution, ICP=intracranial pressure, ICPmax=maximum calendar day mean of ICP over first week of ICU stay, ICPmedian=median calendar day mean of ICP over first week of ICU stay, ICU=intensive care unit, PILOT=Paediatric Intensity Level of Therapy scale,(7) TIL=Therapy Intensity Level scale,(8,9) TIL(1987)=original Therapy Intensity Level scale published in 1987,(6) TIL(Basic)=condensed TIL scale,(8) uwTIL=unweighted TIL scale in which sub-item scores are replaced by the ascending rank index within the item. The 95% confidence intervals of AUC were derived from bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples of unique patients over 100 missing value imputations. (**A**) Distributions of maximum scores of TIL (i.e., TILmax) and alternative scales (i.e., uwTILmax, TIL(Basic)max, PILOTmax, and TIL(1987)max) stratified by refractory intracranial hypertension status. The horizontal black line segments represent the thresholds which maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity for each scale. (**B**) Distributions of median scores of TIL (i.e., TILmedian) and alternative scales (i.e., uwTILmedian, TIL(Basic)median, PILOTmedian, and TIL(1987)median) stratified by refractory intracranial hypertension status. The horizontal black line segments represent the thresholds which maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity for each scale. (**C**) Receiver operating characteristic curve of refractory intracranial hypertension detection with TILmax. The threshold which maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity is highlighted with the dark red circle. (**D**) Receiver operating characteristic curve of refractory intracranial hypertension detection with TILmedian. The threshold which maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity is highlighted with the dark red circle. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/T3) Table 3. Optimised ranges for TIL categorisation ### TIL component items Whilst there was wide variation in item combinations per TIL24 score (i.e., sum of median scores was often under diagonal line in Figure 6A), the average order of therapeutic escalation was fairly consistent: position, sedation, CPP management, ventilatory management, neuromuscular blockade, hyperosmolar therapy, temperature control, and then surgery for refractory ICP. Surgical control of ICP occurred in over 50% of reported cases at each TIL24 above 18 (Figure 6A), but the threshold which maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity in detecting surgical ICP control was TIL24≥9 (Table 3, performance at each threshold is listed in Supplementary Table S4). The inter-item *rrm* values of TIL24 (Supplementary Figure S4) were mostly positive except for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, which did not correlate significantly with most other items, and decompressive craniectomy, which did not correlate significantly with CSF, ventilatory, or temperature control. Consistent with Figure 6A, this result suggested that CSF drainage and decompressive craniectomy were the most variably applied therapies across study ICUs. The Cronbach’s alpha (*α*) value of TIL24 was, at best, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.62–0.68) and lower (albeit, not significantly) than that of uwTIL24 at each day of ICU stay (Supplementary Figure S5). However, since TIL is a formative scale (i.e., the construct is multidimensional and defined by the items), high inter-item correlation and *α* values are not necessary for item validation.(17) Amongst all TIL24 items, sedation was most strongly correlated with adjusted TIL24 scores and physician concerns of ICP (Figure 6B). From 10≤TIL24≤20, a plateau effect of high-dose sedation combined with neuromuscular blockade was observed in most cases (Figure 6A). When accounting for all other TIL24 sub-items, time since ICU admission, as well as inter-patient variability, ventilation, mannitol administration, and hypertonic saline administration were most strongly associated with ICP24 and vasopressors were most strongly associated with CPP24 (Figure 6C). ![Fig 6.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F6.medium.gif) [Fig 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F6) Fig 6. Association of TIL component items with TIL24 and other study measures Abbreviations: CPP=cerebral perfusion pressure, CPP24=mean CPP over calendar day, CSF=cerebrospinal fluid, EH=end-hour, HR=high-resolution, ICP=intracranial pressure, ICP24=mean ICP over calendar day, ICU=intensive care unit, TIL=Therapy Intensity Level scale,(8,9) TIL24=TIL score of calendar day. The 95% confidence intervals of *rrm* and *βLMER* values were derived from bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples of unique patients over 100 missing value imputations. (**A**) Median component score of each ICP-treatment modality (Table 1) per each TIL24 score. The histogram under the *x*-axis represents the relative frequency and count of each TIL24 score in the population, and diagonal dashed line represents the TIL24 score on both axes. If the sum of median item scores does not equal the corresponding TIL24 score, this can be interpreted as high variability in the combination of simultaneously applied therapies at that TIL24 score. (**B**) The repeated measures correlation coefficients (*rrm*, from −1 to 1) are interpreted as the strength and direction of association between two variables after accounting for inter-patient variation. The component score of each item (Table 1, *x*-axis) was subtracted from the TIL24 score (top row on *y*-axis) before calculating their *rrm* values. (**C**) Linear mixed effects model coefficients (*βLMER*) are interpreted as the expected difference in the dependent variable (*y*-axis) associated with the given TIL24 sub-item treatment (Table 1) after accounting for all other TIL24 sub-items, time since ICU admission, and inter-patient variation. ### TIL(Basic) Based on the median TIL(Basic)24 score at each TIL24 score (Figure 7A), we derived the ranges for mapping TIL24 onto TIL(Basic)24 in Table 3. There is, however, considerable overlap of TIL24 scores across TIL(Basic)24 scores (Figure 7B), particularly in the range of 6≤TIL24≤10, and at no TIL24 score was TIL(Basic)24=3 the most represented score (Figure 7A). TIL(Basic)24 covered up to 33% (95% CI: 31–34%) of the information (i.e., entropy) in TIL24, and TIL(Basic)median covered up to 28% (95% CI: 27–30%) of the information in TILmedian (Figure 7C). TIL(Basic)max only covered 17% (95% CI: 16–18%) of the information in TILmax (Figure 7C). ![Fig 7.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F7.medium.gif) [Fig 7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.03.23293615/F7) Fig 7. Relationship between TIL and TIL(Basic) Abbreviations: AUC=area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, ICU=intensive care unit, TIL=Therapy Intensity Level scale,(8,9) TIL(Basic)=condensed TIL scale.(8) The numeric definition of each scale is listed in Table 1, and the calculation of daily (e.g., TIL24), maximum (e.g., TILmax), and median (e.g., TILmedian) scores are described in the Methods. The 95% confidence intervals of information coverage were derived from bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples of unique patients over 100 missing value imputations. (**A**) Distribution of corresponding TIL(Basic)24 scores per each TIL24 score. The values in each cell represent the percent of assessments at a given TIL24 score (i.e., column) corresponding to a TIL(Basic)24 score (i.e., row). The vertical, dark red lines represent cut-offs across which the median corresponding TIL(Basic)24 score per TIL24 score changes. (**B**) Distribution of corresponding TIL24 scores per each TIL(Basic)24 score. The width of violin plots is scaled for each TIL(Basic)24 score, but the width of the points inside them demonstrates relative frequency across the TIL(Basic)24 scores. The grey, shaded zones represent the range of TIL24 scores with corresponding median TIL(Basic)24 scores on the *x*-axis, as determined in panel (A). (**C**) The information of TIL24, TILmax, and TILmedian covered by TIL(Basic)24, TIL(Basic)max, and TIL(Basic)median, respectively. Information coverage is defined as the mutual information of TIL24 and TIL(Basic)24 (or TILmax and TIL(Basic)max or TILmedian and TIL(Basic)median) divided by the entropy of TIL24 (or TILmax or TILmedian). ## Discussion In this work, we performed a large-scale (*n*=873), multicentre (52 ICUs, 19 countries), and prospective validation study of TIL and TIL(Basic) against alternative scales. The CENTER-TBI data not only reflect the modern variation in ICP-directed therapeutic intensity (Figures 2 and 6A) but also illustrate the practical feasibility of daily TIL assessment: out of 885 eligible patients, 873 (99%) had daily TIL scores (Figure 1) with less than 2.4% daily missingness (Supplementary Figure S2). Our findings support the validity of TIL as a metric for scoring ICP-directed therapeutic intensity and for marking pathophysiological severity. The statistical construct and criterion validity measures of TIL were significantly greater or similar to those of alternative scales (Figures 3 and 5), and TIL integrated the widest range of modern ICP treatments (Table 1). Our analysis yielded empirical ranges for interpreting TIL in terms of refractory intracranial hypertension, surgical intervention, and the condensed, TIL(Basic) scores (Table 3). On a component level (Figure 6A), TIL24 reflected a pattern of treatment intensity escalation consistent with clinical algorithms2,3,5 as well as a wide variation in treatment combinations, particularly in the use of CSF drainage and decompressive craniectomy. These results support the use of TIL as an intermediate outcome for treatment effect, as done in previous studies.(33,34) Due to a strong ceiling effect (Figures 2A and 5A), TIL(Basic) should not be used instead of TIL for rating maximum treatment intensity. TIL(Basic)24 and TILmedian covered up to 33% of the information in TIL24 (Figure 7C), but the TIL(Basic)24 associations with physician concerns of ICP were significantly worse than those of TIL24 (Figure 3C). TIL should always be preferred to TIL(Basic), but we believe daily or median TIL(Basic) can be a suitable alternative when daily or median TIL assessment is infeasible. Moreover, we evaluated TIL with both end-hour (ICPEH) and high-resolution (ICPHR) ICP values. ICPHR is the gold standard, and neuromonitoring-related results from the ICPHR population should generally take precedence.(14) However, 67% of expected ICPHR values were missing on day one of ICU stay (Supplementary Figure S2), likely due to the time required to arrange high-resolution data collection. Consequently, estimates of high-resolution ICPmax were significantly affected by missing value imputation and became imprecise at our sample size (Figure 3A). In these cases, results from the ICPEH population served as a valuable reference on a substantially larger sample size (Table 2) since ICPEH and CPPEH have been shown to be fair end-hour representations of ICPHR and CPPHR, respectively, in CENTER-TBI.(14) The considerable overlap of ICP24 values across TIL24 scores (Figure 4A) and the insignificant-to-weak, within-individual association between ICP24 and TIL24 (Figure 3C–D) highlight the need to account for therapeutic intensity when interpreting ICP. Additionally, the higher median ICP24 values for TIL24≥8 (Figure 4A) may suggest that clinicians accept a slightly higher ICP when balancing the risks of elevating therapeutic intensity against those of intracranial hypertension. We see three main opportunities to improve TIL. First, the item scores of TIL and its predecessors (i.e., PILOT and TIL(1987)) were not derived empirically. Data-driven techniques, such as confirmatory factor analysis,(28) can be used to derive scoring configurations which optimise a defined objective (e.g., maximal separation of patients). However, data-driven scores do not necessarily reflect the intended construct (i.e., treatment risk and complexity),(35) and, in general, item scoring does not have an appreciable impact on overall scale performance.(28) Second, the items of TIL must evolve as therapeutic approaches to ICP management evolve. TIL discriminated refractory intracranial hypertension status significantly better than TIL(1987) (Figure 5A–B) because TIL updated TIL(1987) with six additional items (Table 1). We recommend updating and re-evaluating TIL each time ICP-treatment modalities or their perceived risks change. Finally, the development of TIL was largely informed by the perspective of ICU practices in high-income countries.(8) Likewise, this assessment was performed in a cohort of patients across Europe and Israel. Especially given the disproportionately higher burden of TBI in low- and middle-income countries,(36) it is imperative to test and, if necessary, adapt TIL to a more inclusive, global population of TBI. We recognise several limitations of our analysis. Whilst numerous investigators assessed TIL across the study ICUs, each TIL score was only assessed once. Therefore, we could not evaluate the interrater reliability of TIL. Similarly, data needed to calculate the full TIL score was only recorded once a day, so we could not determine if a daily assessment frequency was sufficient. Since the prior TIL validation study reported a high interrater reliability and recommended a daily assessment frequency,(9) we assumed both to be true. The results from the Randomised Evaluation of Surgery with Craniectomy for Uncontrollable Elevation of Intracranial Pressure (RESCUEicp) trial(37) – published amidst CENTER-TBI patient recruitment in 2016 – have likely changed the global frequency and perceived intensity of decompressive craniectomy for TBI. Therefore, we recognise the potentially confounding effect of the trial results on treatment decision making for some patients in the CENTER-TBI population and encourage a potential reappraisal of the therapeutic intensity of decompressive craniectomy through expert discussion and statistical validation. The physician impressions (i.e., physician concerns of ICP and CPP and refractory intracranial hypertension status) were subjective, and we did not have enough information to account for interrater variability. Therefore, these scores and labels should be considered unrefined. Finally, because of limited dosage data for numerical treatments (i.e., CSF drainage, ventilation, hyperosmolar therapy, and temperature control), we did not test alternative sub-item categorisations. ## Conclusion TIL is a valid, generalisable measurement of ICP management amongst neuro-monitored TBI patients in the ICU. On all validation metrics, TIL performs at least as well as its alternatives and considers the widest range of modern treatment strategies. TIL’s component scores over increasing TIL reflect a clinically credible order of treatment escalation, from head positioning to ICP-directed surgery. TIL(Basic) is not suitable for evaluating maximum treatment intensity, but daily TIL(Basic) and median TIL(Basic) can cover up to a third of the information in TIL. In the setting of clinical ICP management, TIL is a more sensitive marker of pathophysiological severity than ICP and can be considered an intermediate outcome after TBI. ### Transparency, Rigor and Reproducibility Summary The CENTER-TBI study was pre-registered at [clinicaltrials.gov](http://clinicaltrials.gov) ([NCT02210221](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link\_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT02210221&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom), [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02210221](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02210221)). The analysis plan was registered after beginning data collection but before data analysis at [https://www.center-tbi.eu/data/approved-proposals](https://www.center-tbi.eu/data/approved-proposals) (#491), and the lead author with primary responsibility for the analysis certifies that the analysis plan was pre-specified. A sample size of 903 patients was planned based on availability of critically ill, ICP-monitored, adult TBI patients recruited for CENTER-TBI. Actual sample size was 873, as 18 patients had a documented decision to WLST on the first day of ICU stay and 12 additional patients did not have daily TIL scores assessed. A patient inclusion diagram is provided (Figure 1). TIL scoring and clinical data entry was performed by investigators who were aware of relevant characteristics of the participants. Participants were recruited between 19 December 2014 and 17 December 2017, and data (including follow-up results) were collected until 31 March 2021. High-resolution waveforms were stored directly from bedside monitoring software, as described in the Methods and Materials. Variability amongst different TIL assessors is not expected to be significant based on the established high interrater reliability of TIL.(9) All equipment and software used to perform imaging and preprocessing are widely available from commercial sources or open source repositories. The clinimetric validation procedure and the primary clinical metric (TIL) are established standards in the field, based on previously published results(9,28) and this study. The assumption of bootstrapping-derived confidence intervals is that the sample is representative of the population. This study is, itself, an external validation, and internal replication by the study group was performed. Individual participant data are available online, conditional to approved online study proposal, with no end date at [https://www.center-tbi.eu/data](https://www.center-tbi.eu/data). Signed confirmation of a data access agreement is required, and all access must comply with regulatory restrictions imposed on the original study. All analytic code used to perform the statistical analyses are publicly available online at: [https://github.com/sbhattacharyay/CENTER-TBI_TIL](https://github.com/sbhattacharyay/CENTER-TBI_TIL). This paper will be published under a Creative Commons Open Access license, and upon publication, will be freely available at [https://www.liebertpub.com/loi/neu](https://www.liebertpub.com/loi/neu). ## Supporting information Supplementary [[supplements/293615_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability Individual participant data are available online, conditional to approved online study proposal, with no end date at [https://www.center-tbi.eu/data](https://www.center-tbi.eu/data). Signed confirmation of a data access agreement is required, and all access must comply with regulatory restrictions imposed on the original study. All analytic code used to perform the statistical analyses are publicly available online at: [https://github.com/sbhattacharyay/CENTER-TBI_TIL](https://github.com/sbhattacharyay/CENTER-TBI_TIL). [https://www.center-tbi.eu/data](https://www.center-tbi.eu/data) [https://github.com/sbhattacharyay/CENTER-TBI\_TIL](https://github.com/sbhattacharyay/CENTER-TBI_TIL) ## The CENTER-TBI investigators and participants The co-lead investigators of CENTER-TBI are designated with an asterisk (*), and their contact email addresses are listed below. Cecilia Åkerlund1, Krisztina Amrein2, Nada Andelic3, Lasse Andreassen4, Audny Anke5, Anna Antoni6, Gérard Audibert7, Philippe Azouvi8, Maria Luisa Azzolini9, Ronald Bartels10, Pál Barzó11, Romuald Beauvais12, Ronny Beer13, Bo-Michael Bellander14, Antonio Belli15, Habib Benali16, Maurizio Berardino17, Luigi Beretta9, Morten Blaabjerg18, Peter Bragge19, Alexandra Brazinova20, Vibeke Brinck21, Joanne Brooker22, Camilla Brorsson23, Andras Buki24, Monika Bullinger25, Manuel Cabeleira26, Alessio Caccioppola27, Emiliana Calappi27, Maria Rosa Calvi9, Peter Cameron28, Guillermo Carbayo Lozano29, Marco Carbonara27, Simona Cavallo17, Giorgio Chevallard30, Arturo Chieregato30, Giuseppe Citerio31,32, Hans Clusmann33, Mark Coburn34, Jonathan Coles35, Jamie D. Cooper36, Marta Correia37, Amra Čović 38, Nicola Curry39, Endre Czeiter24, Marek Czosnyka26, Claire Dahyot-Fizelier40, Paul Dark41, Helen Dawes42, Véronique De Keyser43, Vincent Degos16, Francesco Della Corte44, Hugo den Boogert10, Bart Depreitere45, Đula Đilvesi46, Abhishek Dixit47, Emma Donoghue22, Jens Dreier48, Guy-Loup Dulière49, Ari Ercole47, Patrick Esser42, Erzsébet Ezer50, Martin Fabricius51, Valery L. Feigin52, Kelly Foks53, Shirin Frisvold54, Alex Furmanov55, Pablo Gagliardo56, Damien Galanaud16, Dashiell Gantner28, Guoyi Gao57, Pradeep George58, Alexandre Ghuysen59, Lelde Giga60, Ben Glocker61, Jagoš Golubovic46, Pedro A. Gomez62, Johannes Gratz63, Benjamin Gravesteijn64, Francesca Grossi44, Russell L. Gruen65, Deepak Gupta66, Juanita A. Haagsma64, Iain Haitsma67, Raimund Helbok13, Eirik Helseth68, Lindsay Horton69, Jilske Huijben64, Peter J. Hutchinson70, Bram Jacobs71, Stefan Jankowski72, Mike Jarrett21, Ji-yao Jiang58, Faye Johnson73, Kelly Jones52, Mladen Karan46, Angelos G. Kolias70, Erwin Kompanje74, Daniel Kondziella51, Evgenios Kornaropoulos47, Lars-Owe Koskinen75, Noémi Kovács76, Ana Kowark77, Alfonso Lagares62, Linda Lanyon58, Steven Laureys78, Fiona Lecky79,80, Didier Ledoux78, Rolf Lefering81, Valerie Legrand82, Aurelie Lejeune83, Leon Levi84, Roger Lightfoot85, Hester Lingsma64, Andrew I.R. Maas43,*, Ana M. Castaño-León62, Marc Maegele86, Marek Majdan20, Alex Manara87, Geoffrey Manley88, Costanza Martino89, Hugues Maréchal49, Julia Mattern90, Catherine McMahon91, Béla Melegh92, David Menon47,*, Tomas Menovsky43, Ana Mikolic64, Benoit Misset78, Visakh Muraleedharan58, Lynnette Murray28, Ancuta Negru93, David Nelson1, Virginia Newcombe47, Daan Nieboer64, József Nyirádi2, Otesile Olubukola79, Matej Oresic94, Fabrizio Ortolano27, Aarno Palotie95,96,97, Paul M. Parizel98, Jean-François Payen99, Natascha Perera12, Vincent Perlbarg16, Paolo Persona100, Wilco Peul101, Anna Piippo-Karjalainen102, Matti Pirinen95, Dana Pisica64, Horia Ples93, Suzanne Polinder64, Inigo Pomposo29, Jussi P. Posti103, Louis Puybasset104, Andreea Radoi105, Arminas Ragauskas106, Rahul Raj102, Malinka Rambadagalla107, Isabel Retel Helmrich64, Jonathan Rhodes108, Sylvia Richardson109, Sophie Richter47, Samuli Ripatti95, Saulius Rocka106, Cecilie Roe110, Olav Roise111,112, Jonathan Rosand113, Jeffrey V. Rosenfeld114, Christina Rosenlund115, Guy Rosenthal55, Rolf Rossaint77, Sandra Rossi100, Daniel Rueckert61 Martin Rusnák116, Juan Sahuquillo105, Oliver Sakowitz90,117, Renan Sanchez-Porras117, Janos Sandor118, Nadine Schäfer81, Silke Schmidt119, Herbert Schoechl120, Guus Schoonman121, Rico Frederik Schou122, Elisabeth Schwendenwein6, Charlie Sewalt64, Ranjit D. Singh101, Toril Skandsen123,124, Peter Smielewski26, Abayomi Sorinola125, Emmanuel Stamatakis47, Simon Stanworth39, Robert Stevens126, William Stewart127, Ewout W. Steyerberg64,128, Nino Stocchetti129, Nina Sundström130, Riikka Takala131, Viktória Tamás125, Tomas Tamosuitis132, Mark Steven Taylor20, Braden Te Ao52, Olli Tenovuo103, Alice Theadom52, Matt Thomas87, Dick Tibboel133, Marjolein Timmers74, Christos Tolias134, Tony Trapani28, Cristina Maria Tudora93, Andreas Unterberg90, Peter Vajkoczy 135, Shirley Vallance28, Egils Valeinis60, Zoltán Vámos50, Mathieu van der Jagt136, Gregory Van der Steen43, Joukje van der Naalt71, Jeroen T.J.M. van Dijck101, Inge A. M. van Erp101, Thomas A. van Essen101, Wim Van Hecke137, Caroline van Heugten138, Dominique Van Praag139, Ernest van Veen64, Thijs Vande Vyvere137, Roel P. J. van Wijk101, Alessia Vargiolu32, Emmanuel Vega83, Kimberley Velt64, Jan Verheyden137, Paul M. Vespa140, Anne Vik123,141, Rimantas Vilcinis132, Victor Volovici67, Nicole von Steinbüchel38, Daphne Voormolen64, Petar Vulekovic46, Kevin K.W. Wang142, Daniel Whitehouse47, Eveline Wiegers64, Guy Williams47, Lindsay Wilson69, Stefan Winzeck47, Stefan Wolf143, Zhihui Yang113, Peter Ylén144, Alexander Younsi90, Frederick A. Zeiler47,145, Veronika Zelinkova20, Agate Ziverte60, Tommaso Zoerle27 1Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Section of Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden 2János Szentágothai Research Centre, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary 3Division of Surgery and Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 4Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Northern Norway, Tromso, Norway 5Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital Northern Norway, Tromso, Norway 6Trauma Surgery, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria 7Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, University Hospital Nancy, Nancy, France 8Raymond Poincare hospital, Assistance Publique – Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France 9Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, S Raffaele University Hospital, Milan, Italy 10Department of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands 11Department of Neurosurgery, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary 12International Projects Management, ARTTIC, Munchen, Germany 13Department of Neurology, Neurological Intensive Care Unit, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria 14Department of Neurosurgery & Anesthesia & intensive care medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden 15NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, Birmingham, UK 16Anesthesie-Réanimation, Assistance Publique – Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France 17Department of Anesthesia & ICU, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino - Orthopedic and Trauma Center, Torino, Italy 18Department of Neurology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark 19BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Victoria, Australia 20Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences and Social Work, Trnava University, Trnava, Slovakia 21Quesgen Systems Inc., Burlingame, California, USA 22Australian & New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia 23Department of Surgery and Perioperative Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden 24Department of Neurosurgery, Medical School, University of Pécs, Hungary and Neurotrauma Research Group, János Szentágothai Research Centre, University of Pécs, Hungary 25Department of Medical Psychology, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany 26Brain Physics Lab, Division of Neurosurgery, Dept of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK 27Neuro ICU, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy 28ANZIC Research Centre, Monash University, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 29Department of Neurosurgery, Hospital of Cruces, Bilbao, Spain 30NeuroIntensive Care, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy 31School of Medicine and Surgery, Università Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy 32NeuroIntensive Care, ASST di Monza, Monza, Italy 33Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany 34Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany 35Department of Anesthesia & Neurointensive Care, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK 36School of Public Health & PM, Monash University and The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 37Radiology/MRI department, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK 38Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany 39Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK 40Intensive Care Unit, CHU Poitiers, Potiers, France 41University of Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Critical Care Directorate, Salford Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK 42Movement Science Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK 43Department of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium 44Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care, Maggiore Della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy 45Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium 46Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical centre of Vojvodina, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia 47Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK 48Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany 49Intensive Care Unit, CHR Citadelle, Liège, Belgium 50Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary 51Departments of Neurology, Clinical Neurophysiology and Neuroanesthesiology, Region Hovedstaden Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark 52National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, Faculty of Health and Environmental Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand 53Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands 54Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive care, University Hospital Northern Norway, Tromso, Norway 55Department of Neurosurgery, Hadassah-hebrew University Medical center, Jerusalem, Israel 56Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Neurorrehabilitación (FIVAN), Valencia, Spain 57Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Renji hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University/school of medicine, Shanghai, China 58Karolinska Institutet, INCF International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility, Stockholm, Sweden 59Emergency Department, CHU, Liège, Belgium 60Neurosurgery clinic, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia 61Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK 62Department of Neurosurgery, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain 63Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Austria 64Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 65College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 66Department of Neurosurgery, Neurosciences Centre & JPN Apex trauma centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-110029, India 67Department of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands 68Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway 69Division of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK 70Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke’s Hospital & University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 71Department of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands 72Neurointensive Care, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK 73Salford Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Acute Research Delivery Team, Salford, UK 74Department of Intensive Care and Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 75Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurosurgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden 76Hungarian Brain Research Program - Grant No. KTIA\_13\_Not ApplicableP-A-II/8, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary 77Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany 78Cyclotron Research Center, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium 79Centre for Urgent and Emergency Care Research (CURE), Health Services Research Section, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK 80Emergency Department, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford UK 81Institute of Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany 82VP Global Project Management CNS, ICON, Paris, France 83Department of Anesthesiology-Intensive Care, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France 84Department of Neurosurgery, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel 85Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, University Hospitals Southhampton NHS Trust, Southhampton, UK 86Cologne-Merheim Medical Center (CMMC), Department of Traumatology, Orthopedic Surgery and Sportmedicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany 87Intensive Care Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, Bristol, UK 88Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA 89Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care,M. Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy 90Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 91Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK 92Department of Medical Genetics, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary 93Department of Neurosurgery, Emergency County Hospital Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania 94School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden 95Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 96Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Department of Medicine; Psychiatric & Neurodevelopmental Genetics Unit, Department of Psychiatry; Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA 97Program in Medical and Population Genetics; The Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA 98Department of Radiology, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium 99Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, University Hospital of Grenoble, Grenoble, France 100Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliera Università di Padova, Padova, Italy 101Dept. of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands and Dept. of Neurosurgery, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, The Netherlands 102Department of Neurosurgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital 103Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Department of Neurosurgery and Turku Brain Injury Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland 104Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pitié-Salpêtrière Teaching Hospital, Assistance Publique, Hôpitaux de Paris and University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France 105Neurotraumatology and Neurosurgery Research Unit (UNINN), Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain 106Department of Neurosurgery, Kaunas University of technology and Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania 107Department of Neurosurgery, Rezekne Hospital, Latvia 108Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine NHS Lothian & University of Edinburg, Edinburgh, UK 109Director, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK 110Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital/University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 111Division of Orthopedics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway 112Institue of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 113Broad Institute, Cambridge MA Harvard Medical School, Boston MA, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA, USA 114National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 115Department of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark 116International Neurotrauma Research Organisation, Vienna, Austria 117Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, Germany 118Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary 119Department Health and Prevention, University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany 120Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, AUVA Trauma Hospital, Salzburg, Austria 121Department of Neurology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands 122Department of Neuroanesthesia and Neurointensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark 123Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway 124Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, St.Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway 125Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary 126Division of Neuroscience Critical Care, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA 127Department of Neuropathology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK 128Dept. of Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands 129Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Milan University, and Neuroscience ICU, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy 130Department of Radiation Sciences, Biomedical Engineering, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden 131Perioperative Services, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Management, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland 132Department of Neurosurgery, Kaunas University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania 133Intensive Care and Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 134Department of Neurosurgery, Kings college London, London, UK 135Neurologie, Neurochirurgie und Psychiatrie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany 136Department of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC– University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands 137icoMetrix NV, Leuven, Belgium 138Movement Science Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK 139Psychology Department, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium 140Director of Neurocritical Care, University of California, Los Angeles, USA 141Department of Neurosurgery, St.Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway 142Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 143Department of Neurosurgery, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany 144VTT Technical Research Centre, Tampere, Finland 145Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada *Co-lead investigators: andrew.maas{at}uza.be (AIRM) and dkm13{at}cam.ac.uk (DM) ## Acknowledgments This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Brain Injury MedTech Co-operative. CENTER-TBI was supported by the European Union 7th Framework programme (EC grant 602150). Additional funding was obtained from the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany), from OneMind (USA), from Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA), and from NeuroTrauma Sciences (USA). CENTER-TBI also acknowledges interactions and support from the International Initiative for TBI Research (InTBIR) investigators. S.B. is funded by a Gates Cambridge Scholarship. E.B. is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR N013433-1) and by a Gates Cambridge Scholarship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We are grateful to the patients and families of our study for making our efforts to improve TBI care possible. S.B. would like to thank Kathleen Mitchell-Fox (Princeton University) for offering comments on the manuscript. ## Footnotes * † A full list of the CENTER-TBI investigators and participants are listed after the acknowledgements. * Received August 3, 2023. * Revision received August 3, 2023. * Accepted August 8, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Stocchetti N, Maas AIR. Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension. N Engl J Med 2014;370(22):2121–2130; doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1208708. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMra1208708&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24869722&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 2. 2.Meyfroidt G, Bouzat P, Casaer MP, et al. Management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: an update for the intensivist. Intensive Care Med 2022;48(6):649–666; doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06702-4. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-022-06702-4&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.Menon DK, Ercole A. Chapter 14 - Critical care management of traumatic brain injury. Wijdicks EFM, Kramer AH. eds. Handb Clin Neurol 2017;140(Journal Article):239–274; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63600-3.00014-3. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/B978-0-444-63600-3.00014-3&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Stocchetti N, Carbonara M, Citerio G, et al. Severe traumatic brain injury: targeted management in the intensive care unit. Lancet Neurol 2017;16(6):452–464; doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30118-7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30118-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 5. 5.Hawryluk GWJ, Aguilera S, Buki A, et al. A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC). Intensive Care Med 2019;45(12):1783– 1794; doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05805-9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-019-05805-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 6. 6.Maset AL, Marmarou A, Ward JD, et al. Pressure-volume index in head injury. J Neurosurg 1987;67(6):832–840; doi: 10.3171/jns.1987.67.6.0832. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/jns.1987.67.6.0832&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3681422&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1987K991300006&link_type=ISI) 7. 7.Shore PM, Hand LL, Roy L, et al. Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Intensity Level of Therapy (PILOT) scale: A measure of the use of intracranial pressure– directed therapies. Crit Care Med 2006;34(7):1981; doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000220765.22184.ED. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.CCM.0000220765.22184.ED&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16691131&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000238639300017&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.Maas AIR, Harrison-Felix CL, Menon D, et al. Standardizing Data Collection in Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma 2011;28(2):177–187; doi: 10.1089/neu.2010.1617. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.2010.1617&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21162610&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 9. 9.Zuercher P, Groen JL, Aries MJH, et al. Reliability and Validity of the Therapy Intensity Level Scale: Analysis of Clinimetric Properties of a Novel Approach to Assess Management of Intracranial Pressure in Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma 2016;33(19):1768–1774; doi: 10.1089/neu.2015.4266. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.2015.4266&link_type=DOI) 10. 10.Robba C, Graziano F, Guglielmi A, et al. Treatments for intracranial hypertension in acute brain-injured patients: grading, timing, and association with outcome. Data from the SYNAPSE-ICU study. Intensive Care Med 2023;49(1):50–61; doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06937-1. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-022-06937-1&link_type=DOI) 11. 11.Huijben JA, Wiegers EJA, Lingsma HF, et al. Changing care pathways and between-center practice variations in intensive care for traumatic brain injury across Europe: a CENTER-TBI analysis. Intensive Care Med 2020;46(5):995–1004; doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05965-z. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-020-05965-z&link_type=DOI) 12. 12.Huijben JA, Dixit A, Stocchetti N, et al. Use and impact of high intensity treatments in patients with traumatic brain injury across Europe: a CENTER-TBI analysis. Crit Care 2021;25(1):78; doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03370-y. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13054-020-03370-y&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33622371&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 13. 13.Bhattacharyay S, Caruso PF, Åkerlund C, et al. Contribution of Clinical Course to Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury: Mining Patient Trajectories from European Intensive Care Unit Data. 2023; doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.04630. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.48550/arXiv.2303.04630&link_type=DOI) 14. 14.Zoerle T, Birg T, Carbonara M, et al. Accuracy of Manual Intracranial Pressure Recording Compared to a Computerized High-Resolution System: A CENTER-TBI Analysis. Neurocrit Care 2023; doi: 10.1007/s12028-023-01697-2. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s12028-023-01697-2&link_type=DOI) 15. 15.Maas AIR, Menon DK, Manley GT, et al. Traumatic brain injury: progress and challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research. Lancet Neurol 2022;21(11):1004–1060; doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00309-X. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00309-X&link_type=DOI) 16. 16.Cnossen MC, Huijben JA, van der Jagt M, et al. Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Crit Care 2017;21(1):233; doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1816-9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13054-017-1816-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28874206&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 17. 17.Avila ML, Stinson J, Kiss A, et al. A critical review of scoring options for clinical measurement tools. BMC Res Notes 2015;8(1):612; doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1561-6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13104-015-1561-6&link_type=DOI) 18. 18.Maas AIR, Menon DK, Steyerberg EW, et al. Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): A Prospective Longitudinal Observational Study. Neurosurgery 2015;76(1):67–80; doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25525693&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 19. 19.Steyerberg EW, Wiegers E, Sewalt C, et al. Case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in CENTER-TBI: a European prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Neurol 2019;18(10):923– 934; doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30232-7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30232-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 20. 20.Doiron D, Marcon Y, Fortier I, et al. Software Application Profile: Opal and Mica: open-source software solutions for epidemiological data management, harmonization and dissemination. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46(5):1372–1378; doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx180. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ije/dyx180&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 21. 21.Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M, et al. Patient-specific ICP Epidemiologic Thresholds in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury: A CENTER-TBI Validation Study. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2021;33(1):28–38; doi: 10.1097/ANA.0000000000000616. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/ANA.0000000000000616&link_type=DOI) 22. 22.Marshall LF, Marshall SB, Klauber MR, et al. The diagnosis of head injury requires a classification based on computed axial tomography. J Neurotrauma 1992;9 Suppl 1:S287–292. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1588618&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992HN80600027&link_type=ISI) 23. 23.Teasdale G, Maas A, Lecky F, et al. The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: standing the test of time. The LancetNeurology 2014;13(8):844–854; doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25030516&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 24. 24.Ercole A, Dixit A, Nelson DW, et al. Imputation strategies for missing baseline neurological assessment covariates after traumatic brain injury: A CENTER-TBI study. PLoS ONE 2021;16(8):e0253425. 25. 25.McMillan T, Wilson L, Ponsford J, et al. The Glasgow Outcome Scale - 40 years of application and refinement. Nat Rev Neurol 2016;12(8):477–485; doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2016.89. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2016.89&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27418377&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 26. 26.Kunzmann K, Wernisch L, Richardson S, et al. Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma 2021;38(4):455–463; doi: 10.1089/neu.2019.6858. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.2019.6858&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 27. 27.Bhattacharyay S, Milosevic I, Wilson L, et al. The leap to ordinal: Detailed functional prognosis after traumatic brain injury with a flexible modelling approach. PLoS ONE 2022;17(7):e0270973; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270973. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0270973&link_type=DOI) 28. 28.Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, et al. Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Front Public Health 2018;6:149; doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29942800&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 29. 29.Bakdash JZ, Marusich LR. Repeated Measures Correlation. Front Psychol 2017;8:456; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28439244&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 30. 30.van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw 2011;45(3):1–67; doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18637/jss.v045.i03&link_type=DOI) 31. 31.Gravesteijn BY, Sewalt CA, Venema E, et al. Missing Data in Prediction Research: A Five-Step Approach for Multiple Imputation, Illustrated in the CENTER-TBI Study. J Neurotrauma 2021;38(13):1842–1857; doi: 10.1089/neu.2020.7218. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.2020.7218&link_type=DOI) 32. 32. Honaker J King, G, Blackwell,M. Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data. J Stat Softw 2011;45(7); doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i07. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18637/jss.v045.i07&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24451623&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 33. 33.Beqiri E, Smielewski P, Robba C, et al. Feasibility of individualised severe traumatic brain injury management using an automated assessment of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure: the COGiTATE phase II study protocol. BMJ Open 2019;9(9):e030727; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030727. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOS85L2UwMzA3MjciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wOC8wOC8yMDIzLjA4LjAzLjIzMjkzNjE1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 34. 34.Tas J, Beqiri E, van Kaam RC, et al. Targeting Autoregulation-Guided Cerebral Perfusion Pressure after Traumatic Brain Injury (COGiTATE): A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Neurotrauma 2021;38(20):2790–2800; doi: 10.1089/neu.2021.0197. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/neu.2021.0197&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34407385&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom) 35. 35.Schreiber JB. Issues and recommendations for exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis. Res Soc Adm Pharm 2021;17(5):1004–1011; doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.027. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.027&link_type=DOI) 36. 36.Clark D, Joannides A, Adeleye AO, et al. Casemix, management, and mortality of patients receiving emergency neurosurgery for traumatic brain injury in the Global Neurotrauma Outcomes Study: a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol 2022;21(5):438–449; doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00037-0. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00037-0&link_type=DOI) 37. 37.Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS, et al. Trial of Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension. N Engl J Med 2016;375(12):1119–1130; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1605215. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1605215&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27602507&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2F2023.08.03.23293615.atom)