Diagnostic utility of Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG): systematic review and meta-analysis for prediction of neurosurgical intervention in traumatic brain injury

Abstract

Background
The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) categorize the severity of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). The efficacy of BIG in predicting radiological deterioration and the necessity for neurosurgical intervention remains uncertain, as there is a lack of examination of pooled data from current literature despite validation in numerous single and multi-institutional studies. The aim of this study was to analyze existing studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of BIG scoring criteria.

Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPEROID CRD42021277542). Three databases were searched, and articles published from 2000 to October 2022 were included (last search date: 25 November 2022). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using random effects meta-analysis.

Results
Of the 1130 articles identified, 13 were included in the analysis (9032 patients – 1433 BIG1, 2136 BIG2 & 3189 BIG3). A total of 2274 patients were not classified under either group. Pooled sensitivity for predicting neurosurgical intervention was 1.00 (95%CI:1.00–1.00), and 0.98 for radiological deterioration (95% CI: 0.927–0.996). The specificity in predicting radiological deterioration was 0.18 (95% CI: 0.16–0.21) and 0.05 for neurosurgical intervention (95% CI 0.05–0.05).

Conclusions
The BIG score is highly sensitive at excluding TBI cases that do not require neurosurgical intervention; however, BIG-2 and BIG-3 might not be useful for ruling in TBI patients who require neurosurgical intervention.