The Therapy Intensity Level scale for traumatic brain injury: clinimetric assessment on neuro-monitored patients across 52 European intensive care units

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 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 values, 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 (hereafter referred to as TIL) as well as a condensed, five-category 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 Furthermore, 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

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) 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. 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 (Fig. 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.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

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 (ICP_EH) values, which were recorded by clinicians at the end of every other hour, constituted the TIL-ICP_EH sub-population. Patients with high-resolution ICP values (ICP_HR), which were automatically stored with monitoring software, constituted the TIL- ICP_HR sub-population. All patients in the TIL-ICP_HR sub-population were also members of the TIL-ICP_EH sub-population (Fig. 1).

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-ICP_EH sub-population and 259 constituted the TIL-ICP_HR sub- population (Fig. 1). Summary characteristics of the overall population as well as those of the TIL-ICP_EH and TIL-ICP_HR 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-ICP_HR sub-population and those outside of it (Table 2).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

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 Fig. 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 TIL_max, TIL_median, and TIL₂₄, juxtaposed against the scores of alternative scales (Table 1), are displayed in Fig. 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., TIL_max) soon after ICU admission (median: day two, IQR: days one–three). The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ) between TIL_max and TIL_median was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77–0.82), and the median TIL_median:TIL_max ratio was 0.65 (IQR: 0.45–0.80).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

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 (r_rm), and linear mixed effect regression coefficients (β_LMER) of TIL with other study measures are visualised in Fig. 3. Both TIL_max and TIL_median had mildly negative correlations (- 0.26<ρ_mean<-0.19) with baseline GCS, six-month GOSE, and functional outcome prognoses (Fig. 3A–B). The within-individual association of TIL₂₄ with physician concerns of ICP was moderately positive (r_rm=0.35 [95% CI: 0.31–0.38]) and significantly higher than that of TIL^(Basic)₂₄ (Fig. 3C). The association between ICP_median and TIL_median was moderately positive (0.35<ρ_mean<0.45) with both ICP_EH and ICP_HR values, and the association between ICP_max and TIL_max was moderately positive (ρ=0.41 [95% CI: 0.33– 0.46]) with ICP_EH values. The ICP_max vs. TIL_max correlation was not significant (ρ=0.01 [95% CI: -0.16–0.17]) with ICP_HR values; however, without imputing missing ICP_HR values, the ρ was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.35–0.50). This suggests that the longitudinal missingness of ICP_HR (Supplementary Fig. S2) for our sample size made the ICP_max estimation significantly imprecise. Additionally, the within-individual association with ICP₂₄ was either weak or not significant for any daily scale score according to r_rm (Fig. 3C) and β_LMER (Fig. 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 ICP_EH and a 0.19 (95% CI: - 0.06–0.43) mmHg increase in daily mean ICP_HR. 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 (Fig. 4A), we observed both considerable ICP₂₄ overlap across each TIL₂₄ score and an overall positive relationship between TIL₂₄ and ICP₂₄, particularly for TIL₂₄≥8.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

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.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

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 Fig. 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 Fig. S3).

According to ρ, r_rm, and β_LMER values (Fig. 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 (Fig. 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. TIL_max correctly discriminated these patients from the others 81% (95% CI: 78–84%) of the time (Fig. 5A), and TIL_median did so 83% (95% CI: 80–86%) of the time (Fig. 5B). This performance of TIL was significantly greater than or similar to that of all alternative scales (Fig. 5A–B). Furthermore, TIL_median had significantly greater discrimination performance than ICP_max (Fig. 5C) and ICP_median (Fig. 5D), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of refractory intracranial hypertension detection at each threshold of TIL_max, TIL_median, TIL^(Basic)_max, and TIL^(Basic)_median are listed in Supplementary Table S3 and visualised in Fig. 5C–D. The thresholds which maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity were TIL_max≥14 (sensitivity: 68% [95% CI: 62–74%], specificity: 79% [95% CI: 77–81%]) and TIL_median≥7.5 (sensitivity: 81% [95% CI: 77–87%], specificity: 72% [95% CI: 70–75%]) (Table 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

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:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

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 Fig. 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 (Fig. 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 r_rm values of TIL₂₄ (Supplementary Fig. 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 Fig. 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 Fig. 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 (Fig. 6B). From 10≤TIL₂₄≤20, a plateau effect of high-dose sedation combined with neuromuscular blockade was observed in most cases (Fig. 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 (Fig. 6C).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

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 (Fig. 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 (Fig. 7B), particularly in the range of 6≤TIL₂₄≤10. TIL^(Basic)₂₄=3 was not the most represented score at any TIL₂₄ score (Fig. 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 TIL_median (Fig. 7C). TIL^(Basic)_max only covered 17% (95% CI: 16–18%) of the information in TIL_max (Fig. 7C).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

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. Our results support the validity of TIL as a metric for scoring ICP-directed therapeutic intensity. The dataset we used, as part of the CENTER-TBI study, not only reflects the modern variation in ICP-directed therapeutic intensity (Fig. 2 and Fig. 6A) but also illustrates the practical feasibility of daily TIL assessment: out of 885 eligible patients, 873 (99%) had daily TIL scores (Fig. 1) with less than 2.4% daily missingness (Supplementary Fig. S2).

We scrutinised and validated the use 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 (Fig. 3 and Fig. 5), and TIL integrated the widest range of modern ICP treatments (Table 1). Summarised TIL scores outperformed summarised ICP values in detecting refractory intracranial hypertension. 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 (Fig. 6A), TIL₂₄ reflected a pattern of treatment intensity escalation consistent with clinical algorithms^2,3,5 as well as a wide variation in treatment combinations, particularly in the use of CSF drainage and decompressive craniectomy. This finding is consistent with a previous CENTER-TBI study – which revealed inter-centre variation in TIL treatment selection and time to administration¹² – and encourages an investigation of differences in TIL and long-term outcome between centres with known differences in ICP management strategies. In summary, our results support the use of TIL as an intermediate outcome for treatment effect, as done in previous studies.^33–35

Due to a strong ceiling effect (Fig. 2A and Fig. 5A), TIL^(Basic) should not be used instead of TIL for rating maximum treatment intensity. TIL^(Basic)₂₄ and TIL_median covered up to 33% of the information in TIL₂₄ (Fig. 7C), but the TIL^(Basic)₂₄ associations with physician concerns of ICP were significantly worse than those of TIL₂₄ (Fig. 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 (ICP_EH) and high-resolution (ICP_HR) ICP values. ICP_HR, if available, should be considered the gold standard in terms of precision and granularity of the information provided, and neuromonitoring-related results from the ICP_HR population should generally take precedence.¹⁴ However, 67% of expected ICP_HR values were missing on day one of ICU stay (Supplementary Fig. S2), likely due to the time required to arrange high-resolution data collection. Consequently, estimates of high- resolution ICP_max were significantly affected by missing value imputation and became imprecise at our sample size (Fig. 3A). In these cases, results from the ICP_EH population served as a valuable reference on a substantially larger sample size (Table 2) since ICP_EH and CPP_EH have been shown to be fair end-hour representations of ICP_HR and CPP_HR, respectively, in CENTER-TBI.¹⁴ The considerable overlap of ICP₂₄ values across TIL₂₄ scores (both at low and high levels of ICP, Fig. 4A) and the insignificant-to-weak, within- individual association between ICP₂₄ and TIL₂₄ (Fig. 3C–D) highlight the need to account for therapeutic intensity when interpreting ICP. Additionally, the higher median ICP₂₄ values for TIL₂₄≥8 (Fig. 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),³⁶ 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⁾ (Fig. 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,³⁷ it is imperative to test and, if necessary, adapt TIL to a more inclusive, global population of TBI.

By design, TIL does not encompass all facets of modern intensive care for TBI patients. Brain tissue oxygen tension (PbtO₂),³⁸ cerebral microdialysis,³⁹ and brain temperature⁴⁰ have emerged as multimodal, neuromonitoring targets which may affect ICU management in addition to ICP or CPP. Therefore, TIL should be interpreted not as general treatment intensity but rather as the intensity of ICP-directed therapy specifically. We encourage the development and validation of clinical scales assessing the intensity of TBI treatments directed at other physiological targets. Since treatments for other targets often overlap with those for ICP or CPP (e.g., vasopressors target both PbtO₂ and CPP),² we also promote a consolidation of all TBI treatments in an overall therapeutic intensity scale which considers the effect of each treatment on multiple physiological targets.

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) trial⁴¹ – 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 (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 (#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 (Fig. 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. 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. 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.

Author contributions

S.B. co-conceptualised the aims, developed the methodology and design, curated, analysed, and visualised the data, acquired funding, and wrote the manuscript. E.B. curated and analysed data, acquired funding, and reviewed the manuscript. P.Z. and L.W. curated data, aided in the development of methodology, and reviewed the manuscript. EWS and DWN curated data, acquired funding, advised statistical analysis, and reviewed the manuscript. A.I.R.M. and D.K.M. curated data, acquired funding, co-conceptualised the aims, co-developed the methodology, and reviewed the manuscript. A.E. served as principal investigator, curated data, conceptualised the aims, co-developed the methodology, and reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.

Funding statement

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 7^th 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.

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 Citerio^31,32, Hans Clusmann³³, Mark Coburn³⁴, Jonathan Coles³⁵, Jamie D. Cooper³⁶, Marta Correia³⁷, Amra Čović³⁸, 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 Lecky^79,80, Didier Ledoux⁷⁸, Rolf Lefering⁸¹, Valerie Legrand⁸², Aurelie Lejeune⁸³, Leon Levi⁸⁴, Roger Lightfoot⁸⁵, Hester Lingsma⁶⁴, Andrew I.R. Maas^43,86,*, Ana M. Castaño-León⁶², Marc Maegele⁸⁷, Marek Majdan²⁰, Alex Manara⁸⁸, Geoffrey Manley⁸⁹, Costanza Martino⁹⁰, Hugues Maréchal⁴⁹, Julia Mattern⁹¹, Catherine McMahon⁹², Béla Melegh⁹³, David Menon^47,*, Tomas Menovsky^43,86, Ana Mikolic⁶⁴, Benoit Misset⁷⁸, Visakh Muraleedharan⁵⁸, Lynnette Murray²⁸, Ancuta Negru⁹⁴, David Nelson¹, Virginia Newcombe⁴⁷, Daan Nieboer⁶⁴, József Nyirádi², Otesile Olubukola⁷⁹, Matej Oresic⁹⁵, Fabrizio Ortolano²⁷, Aarno Palotie^96,97,98, Paul M. Parizel⁹⁹, Jean-François Payen¹⁰⁰, Natascha Perera¹², Vincent Perlbarg¹⁶, Paolo Persona¹⁰¹, Wilco Peul¹⁰², Anna Piippo- Karjalainen¹⁰³, Matti Pirinen⁹⁶, Dana Pisica⁶⁴, Horia Ples⁹⁴, Suzanne Polinder⁶⁴, Inigo Pomposo²⁹, Jussi P. Posti¹⁰⁴, Louis Puybasset¹⁰⁵, Andreea Radoi¹⁰⁶, Arminas Ragauskas¹⁰⁷, Rahul Raj¹⁰³, Malinka Rambadagalla¹⁰⁸, Isabel Retel Helmrich⁶⁴, Jonathan Rhodes¹⁰⁹, Sylvia Richardson¹¹⁰, Sophie Richter⁴⁷, Samuli Ripatti⁹⁶, Saulius Rocka¹⁰⁷, Cecilie Roe¹¹¹, Olav Roise^112,113, Jonathan Rosand¹¹⁴, Jeffrey V. Rosenfeld¹¹⁵, Christina Rosenlund¹¹⁶, Guy Rosenthal⁵⁵, Rolf Rossaint⁷⁷, Sandra Rossi¹⁰¹, Daniel Rueckert⁶¹ Martin Rusnák¹¹⁷, Juan Sahuquillo¹⁰⁶, Oliver Sakowitz^91,118, Renan Sanchez-Porras¹¹⁸, Janos Sandor¹¹⁹, Nadine Schäfer⁸¹, Silke Schmidt¹²⁰, Herbert Schoechl¹²¹, Guus Schoonman¹²², Rico Frederik Schou¹²³, Elisabeth Schwendenwein⁶, Charlie Sewalt⁶⁴, Ranjit D. Singh¹⁰², Toril Skandsen^124,125, Peter Smielewski²⁶, Abayomi Sorinola¹²⁶, Emmanuel Stamatakis⁴⁷, Simon Stanworth³⁹, Robert Stevens¹²⁷, William Stewart¹²⁸, Ewout W. Steyerberg^64,129, Nino Stocchetti¹³⁰, Nina Sundström¹³¹, Riikka Takala¹³², Viktória Tamás¹²⁶, Tomas Tamosuitis¹³³, Mark Steven Taylor²⁰, Aurore Thibaut⁷⁸, Braden Te Ao⁵², Olli Tenovuo¹⁰⁴, Alice Theadom⁵², Matt Thomas⁸⁸, Dick Tibboel¹³⁴, Marjolein Timmers⁷⁴, Christos Tolias¹³⁵, Tony Trapani²⁸, Cristina Maria Tudora⁹⁴, Andreas Unterberg⁹¹, Peter Vajkoczy¹³⁶, Shirley Vallance²⁸, Egils Valeinis⁶⁰, Zoltán Vámos⁵⁰, Mathieu van der Jagt¹³⁷, Gregory Van der Steen⁴³, Joukje van der Naalt⁷¹, Jeroen T.J.M. van Dijck¹⁰², Inge A. M. van Erp¹⁰², Thomas A. van Essen¹⁰², Wim Van Hecke¹³⁸, Caroline van Heugten¹³⁹, Ernest van Veen⁶⁴, Thijs Vande Vyvere¹⁴⁰, Roel P. J. van Wijk¹⁰², Alessia Vargiolu³², Emmanuel Vega⁸³, Kimberley Velt⁶⁴, Jan Verheyden¹³⁸, Paul M. Vespa¹⁴¹, Anne Vik^124,142, Rimantas Vilcinis¹³³, Victor Volovici⁶⁷, Nicole von Steinbüchel³⁸, Daphne Voormolen⁶⁴, Petar Vulekovic⁴⁶, Kevin K.W. Wang¹⁴³, Daniel Whitehouse⁴⁷, Eveline Wiegers⁶⁴, Guy Williams⁴⁷, Lindsay Wilson⁶⁹, Stefan Winzeck⁴⁷, Stefan Wolf¹⁴⁴, Zhihui Yang¹¹⁴, Peter Ylén¹⁴⁵, Alexander Younsi⁹¹, Frederick A. Zeiler^47,146, 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 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 Unit, Department Neuroscience, IRCCS Fondazione San Gerardo dei Tintori, 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, 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_NAP-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

⁸⁶Department of Translational Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

⁸⁷Cologne-Merheim Medical Center (CMMC), Department of Traumatology, Orthopedic Surgery and Sportmedicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany

⁸⁸Intensive Care Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, Bristol, UK

⁸⁹Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA

⁹⁰Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care,M. Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy

⁹¹Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

⁹²Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK

⁹³Department of Medical Genetics, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary

⁹⁴Department of Neurosurgery, Emergency County Hospital Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania

⁹⁵School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

⁹⁶Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

⁹⁷Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Department of Medicine; Psychiatric & Neurodevelopmental Genetics Unit, Department of Psychiatry; Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

⁹⁸Program in Medical and Population Genetics; The Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

⁹⁹Department of Radiology, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium

¹⁰⁰Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, University Hospital of Grenoble, Grenoble, France

¹⁰¹Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliera Università di Padova, Padova, Italy

¹⁰²Dept. of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands and Dept. of Neurosurgery, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, The Netherlands

¹⁰³Department of Neurosurgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital

¹⁰⁴Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Department of Neurosurgery and Turku Brain Injury Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland

¹⁰⁵Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pitié -Salpêtrière Teaching Hospital, Assistance Publique, Hôpitaux de Paris and University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France

¹⁰⁶Neurotraumatology and Neurosurgery Research Unit (UNINN), Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain

¹⁰⁷Department of Neurosurgery, Kaunas University of technology and Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

¹⁰⁸Department of Neurosurgery, Rezekne Hospital, Latvia

¹⁰⁹Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine NHS Lothian & University of Edinburg, Edinburgh, UK

¹¹⁰Director, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK

¹¹¹Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital/University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

¹¹²Division of Orthopedics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

¹¹³Institue of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

¹¹⁴Broad Institute, Cambridge MA Harvard Medical School, Boston MA, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA, USA

¹¹⁵National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

¹¹⁶Department of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

¹¹⁷International Neurotrauma Research Organisation, Vienna, Austria

¹¹⁸Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, Germany

¹¹⁹Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

¹²⁰Department Health and Prevention, University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

¹²¹Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, AUVA Trauma Hospital, Salzburg, Austria

¹²²Department of Neurology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands

¹²³Department of Neuroanesthesia and Neurointensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

¹²⁴Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of

Science and Technology, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

¹²⁵Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, St.Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

¹²⁶Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary

¹²⁷Division of Neuroscience Critical Care, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA

¹²⁸Department of Neuropathology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

¹²⁹Dept. of Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

¹³⁰Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Milan University, and Neuroscience ICU, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy

¹³¹Department of Radiation Sciences, Biomedical Engineering, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

¹³²Perioperative Services, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Management, Turku

University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland

¹³³Department of Neurosurgery, Kaunas University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

¹³⁴Intensive Care and Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

¹³⁵Department of Neurosurgery, Kings college London, London, UK

¹³⁶Neurologie, Neurochirurgie und Psychiatrie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

¹³⁷Department of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC– University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

¹³⁸icoMetrix NV, Leuven, Belgium

¹³⁹Movement Science Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

¹⁴⁰Radiology Department, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium

¹⁴¹Director of Neurocritical Care, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

¹⁴²Department of Neurosurgery, St.Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

¹⁴³Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

¹⁴⁴Department of Neurosurgery, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany

¹⁴⁵VTT Technical Research Centre, Tampere, Finland

¹⁴⁶Section 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)