Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center

BACKGROUND: Non-fatal outcomes of disease and injury increasingly detract from the ability of the world's population to live in full health, a trend largely attributable to an epidemiological transition in many countries from causes affecting children, to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) more common in adults. For the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 (GBD 2015), we estimated the incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for diseases and injuries at the global, regional, and national scale over the period of 1990 to 2015. METHODS: We estimated incidence and prevalence by age, sex, cause, year, and geography with a wide range of updated and standardised analytical procedures. Improvements from GBD 2013 included the addition of new data sources, updates to literature reviews for 85 causes, and the identification and inclusion of additional studies published up to November, 2015, to expand the database used for estimation of non-fatal outcomes to 60 900 unique data sources. Prevalence and incidence by cause and sequelae were determined with DisMod-MR 2.1, an improved version of the DisMod-MR Bayesian meta-regression tool first developed for GBD 2010 and GBD 2013. For some causes, we used alternative modelling strategies where the complexity of the disease was not suited to DisMod-MR 2.1 or where incidence and prevalence needed to be determined from other data. For GBD 2015 we created a summary indicator that combines measures of income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility (the Socio-demographic Index [SDI]) and used it to compare observed patterns of health loss to the expected pattern for countries or locations with similar SDI scores. FINDINGS: We generated 9·3 billion estimates from the various combinations of prevalence, incidence, and YLDs for causes, sequelae, and impairments by age, sex, geography, and year. In 2015, two causes had acute incidences in excess of 1 billion: upper respiratory infections (17·2 billion, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 15·4-19·2 billion) and diarrhoeal diseases (2·39 billion, 2·30-2·50 billion). Eight causes of chronic disease and injury each affected more than 10% of the world's population in 2015: permanent caries, tension-type headache, iron-deficiency anaemia, age-related and other hearing loss, migraine, genital herpes, refraction and accommodation disorders, and ascariasis. The impairment that affected the greatest number of people in 2015 was anaemia, with 2·36 billion (2·35-2·37 billion) individuals affected. The second and third leading impairments by number of individuals affected were hearing loss and vision loss, respectively. Between 2005 and 2015, there was little change in the leading causes of years lived with disability (YLDs) on a global basis. NCDs accounted for 18 of the leading 20 causes of age-standardised YLDs on a global scale. Where rates were decreasing, the rate of decrease for YLDs was slower than that of years of life lost (YLLs) for nearly every cause included in our analysis. For low SDI geographies, Group 1 causes typically accounted for 20-30% of total disability, largely attributable to nutritional deficiencies, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. Lower back and neck pain was the leading global cause of disability in 2015 in most countries. The leading cause was sense organ disorders in 22 countries in Asia and Africa and one in central Latin America; diabetes in four countries in Oceania; HIV/AIDS in three southern sub-Saharan African countries; collective violence and legal intervention in two north African and Middle Eastern countries; iron-deficiency anaemia in Somalia and Venezuela; depression in Uganda; onchoceriasis in Liberia; and other neglected tropical diseases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. INTERPRETATION: Ageing of the world's population is increasing the number of people living with sequelae of diseases and injuries. Shifts in the epidemiological profile driven by socioeconomic change also contribute to the continued increase in years lived with disability (YLDs) as well as the rate of increase in YLDs. Despite limitations imposed by gaps in data availability and the variable quality of the data available, the standardised and comprehensive approach of the GBD study provides opportunities to examine broad trends, compare those trends between countries or subnational geographies, benchmark against locations at similar stages of development, and gauge the strength or weakness of the estimates available. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals have difficulty justifying the expense of maintaining trauma centers without strong evidence of their effectiveness. To address this gap, we examined differences in mortality between level 1 trauma centers and hospitals without a trauma center (non-trauma centers). METHODS: Mortality outcomes were compared among patients treated in 18 hospitals with a level 1 trauma center and 51 hospitals non-trauma centers located in 14 states. Patients 18 to 84 years old with a moderate-to-severe injury were eligible. Complete data were obtained for 1104 patients who died in the hospital and 4087 patients who were discharged alive. We used propensity-score weighting to adjust for observable differences between patients treated at trauma centers and those treated at non-trauma centers. RESULTS: After adjustment for differences in the case mix, the in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower at trauma centers than at non-trauma centers (7.6 percent vs. 9.5 percent; relative risk, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98), as was the one-year mortality rate (10.4 percent vs. 13.8 percent; relative risk, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95). The effects of treatment at a trauma center varied according to the severity of injury, with evidence to suggest that differences in mortality rates were primarily confined to patients with more severe injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the risk of death is significantly lower when care is provided in a trauma center than in a non-trauma center and argue for continued efforts at regionalization.

BACKGROUND: In transitioning from the Millennium Development Goal to the Sustainable Development Goal era, it is imperative to comprehensively assess progress toward reducing maternal mortality to identify areas of success, remaining challenges, and frame policy discussions. We aimed to quantify maternal mortality throughout the world by underlying cause and age from 1990 to 2015. METHODS: We estimated maternal mortality at the global, regional, and national levels from 1990 to 2015 for ages 10-54 years by systematically compiling and processing all available data sources from 186 of 195 countries and territories, 11 of which were analysed at the subnational level. We quantified eight underlying causes of maternal death and four timing categories, improving estimation methods since GBD 2013 for adult all-cause mortality, HIV-related maternal mortality, and late maternal death. Secondary analyses then allowed systematic examination of drivers of trends, including the relation between maternal mortality and coverage of specific reproductive health-care services as well as assessment of observed versus expected maternal mortality as a function of Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary indicator derived from measures of income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility. FINDINGS: Only ten countries achieved MDG 5, but 122 of 195 countries have already met SDG 3.1. Geographical disparities widened between 1990 and 2015 and, in 2015, 24 countries still had a maternal mortality ratio greater than 400. The proportion of all maternal deaths occurring in the bottom two SDI quintiles, where haemorrhage is the dominant cause of maternal death, increased from roughly 68% in 1990 to more than 80% in 2015. The middle SDI quintile improved the most from 1990 to 2015, but also has the most complicated causal profile. Maternal mortality in the highest SDI quintile is mostly due to other direct maternal disorders, indirect maternal disorders, and abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and/or miscarriage. Historical patterns suggest achievement of SDG 3.1 will require 91% coverage of one antenatal care visit, 78% of four antenatal care visits, 81% of in-facility delivery, and 87% of skilled birth attendance. INTERPRETATION: Several challenges to improving reproductive health lie ahead in the SDG era. Countries should establish or renew systems for collection and timely dissemination of health data; expand coverage and improve quality of family planning services, including access to contraception and safe abortion to address high adolescent fertility; invest in improving health system capacity, including coverage of routine reproductive health care and of more advanced obstetric care-including EmOC; adapt health systems and data collection systems to monitor and reverse the increase in indirect, other direct, and late maternal deaths, especially in high SDI locations; and examine their own performance with respect to their SDI level, using that information to formulate strategies to improve performance and ensure optimum reproductive health of their population. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

AIMS: To examine the effectiveness of brief behavioral interventions adapting the principles and techniques of Motivational Interviewing (MI) to four behavioral domains: substance abuse, smoking, HIV risk and diet/exercise. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of 29 randomized trials of MI interventions. Data on methodological quality were extracted and tabulated. Between-group behavior change effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated for each study. FINDINGS: Due to varying intervention time lengths, targeted problem behaviors, settings and interventionists' backgrounds and skill levels, outcomes were not combined meta-analytically. Sixty per cent of the 29 studies yielded at least one significant behavior change effect size. No significant association between length of follow-up time and magnitude of effect sizes was found across studies. There was substantial evidence that MI is an effective substance abuse intervention method when used by clinicians who are non-specialists in substance abuse treatment, particularly when enhancing entry to and engagement in more intensive substance abuse treatment treatment-as-usual. Data were inadequate to judge the effect of MI in the other domains. Client attribute-treatment interactions were understudied and the sparse and inconsistent findings revealed little about the mechanism by which MI works or for whom it works best. CONCLUSION: To determine more effectively how well MI works in domains other than substance abuse and for whom it works best in all domains, researchers should study MI with risk behaviors other than substance abuse, while examining both interactions and the theoretical components of MI.

OBJECTIVE: Alcoholism is the leading risk factor for injury. The authors hypothesized that providing brief alcohol interventions as a routine component of trauma care would significantly reduce alcohol consumption and would decrease the rate of trauma recidivism. METHODS: This study was a randomized, prospective controlled trial in a level 1 trauma center. Patients were screened using a blood alcohol concentration, gamma glutamyl transpeptidase level, and short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Those with positive results were randomized to a brief intervention or control group. Reinjury was detected by a computerized search of emergency department and statewide hospital discharge records, and 6- and 12-month interviews were conducted to assess alcohol use. RESULTS: A total of 2524 patients were screened; 1153 screened positive (46%). Three hundred sixty-six were randomized to the intervention group, and 396 to controls. At 12 months, the intervention group decreased alcohol consumption by 21.8+/-3.7 drinks per week; in the control group, the decrease was 6.7+/-5.8 (p = 0.03). The reduction was most apparent in patients with mild to moderate alcohol problems (SMAST score 3 to 8); they had 21.6+/-4.2 fewer drinks per week, compared to an increase of 2.3+/-8.3 drinks per week in controls (p < 0.01). There was a 47% reduction in injuries requiring either emergency department or trauma center admission (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 1.07, p = 0.07) and a 48% reduction in injuries requiring hospital admission (3 years follow-up). CONCLUSION: Alcohol interventions are associated with a reduction in alcohol intake and a reduced risk of trauma recidivism. Given the prevalence of alcohol problems in trauma centers, screening, intervention, and counseling for alcohol problems should be routine.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether keeping a firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent crime in the home. To study risk factors for homicide in the home, we identified homicides occurring in the homes of victims in three metropolitan counties. METHODS: After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods. RESULTS: During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. CONCLUSIONS: The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Using a population-based hospital discharge registry with E codes, we examine the 1989 hospitalizations of older adults in Washington State for fall-related injuries. Fall-related trauma accounted for 5.3% of all hospitalizations of older adults, with hospital charges totaling $53,346,191, and resulted in discharge to nursing care more often than other such hospitalizations. An annual hospitalization rate of 13.5 per 1000 persons and an annual cost of $92 per person is reported. The importance of preventing fall-related injuries in older adults is discussed.

IMPORTANCE: The literature focuses on mortality among children younger than 5 years. Comparable information on nonfatal health outcomes among these children and the fatal and nonfatal burden of diseases and injuries among older children and adolescents is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To determine levels and trends in the fatal and nonfatal burden of diseases and injuries among younger children (aged <5 years), older children (aged 5-9 years), and adolescents (aged 10-19 years) between 1990 and 2013 in 188 countries from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 study. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Data from vital registration, verbal autopsy studies, maternal and child death surveillance, and other sources covering 14,244 site-years (ie, years of cause of death data by geography) from 1980 through 2013 were used to estimate cause-specific mortality. Data from 35,620 epidemiological sources were used to estimate the prevalence of the diseases and sequelae in the GBD 2013 study. Cause-specific mortality for most causes was estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble Model strategy. For some infectious diseases (eg, HIV infection/AIDS, measles, hepatitis B) where the disease process is complex or the cause of death data were insufficient or unavailable, we used natural history models. For most nonfatal health outcomes, DisMod-MR 2.0, a Bayesian metaregression tool, was used to meta-analyze the epidemiological data to generate prevalence estimates. FINDINGS: Of the 7.7 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 7.4-8.1) million deaths among children and adolescents globally in 2013, 6.28 million occurred among younger children, 0.48 million among older children, and 0.97 million among adolescents. In 2013, the leading causes of death were lower respiratory tract infections among younger children (905.059 deaths; 95% UI, 810,304-998,125), diarrheal diseases among older children (38,325 deaths; 95% UI, 30,365-47,678), and road injuries among adolescents (115,186 deaths; 95% UI, 105,185-124,870). Iron deficiency anemia was the leading cause of years lived with disability among children and adolescents, affecting 619 (95% UI, 618-621) million in 2013. Large between-country variations exist in mortality from leading causes among children and adolescents. Countries with rapid declines in all-cause mortality between 1990 and 2013 also experienced large declines in most leading causes of death, whereas countries with the slowest declines had stagnant or increasing trends in the leading causes of death. In 2013, Nigeria had a 12% global share of deaths from lower respiratory tract infections and a 38% global share of deaths from malaria. India had 33% of the world's deaths from neonatal encephalopathy. Half of the world's diarrheal deaths among children and adolescents occurred in just 5 countries: India, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Understanding the levels and trends of the leading causes of death and disability among children and adolescents is critical to guide investment and inform policies. Monitoring these trends over time is also key to understanding where interventions are having an impact. Proven interventions exist to prevent or treat the leading causes of unnecessary death and disability among children and adolescents. The findings presented here show that these are underused and give guidance to policy makers in countries where more attention is needed.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of sports- and recreation-related concussions (SRRCs) in the United States is unknown. More than 44 million youth participate in sports annually, thus understanding the frequency of SRRCs in children is important on a population level. Our objective was to determine the number of SRRCs occurring annually among US youth ≤18 years old. METHODS: We identified SRRCs using 3 national databases: MarketScan, National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, and National High School Sports Related Injury Surveillance System, Reporting Injury Online. We determined the number of SRRCs seen in health care settings (outpatient, inpatient, and emergency department) and SRRCs reported to certified high school athletic trainers (ATCs). We used these data and findings in recently published literature to generate a national estimate of SRRCs. RESULTS: We estimate that between 1.1 and 1.9 million SRRCs occur annually in US children aged ≤18 years. Most children with SRRCs, 511 590 to 1 240 972, were not seen in health care settings. Of children with SRRCs seen in health care settings, most were seen as outpatients with 377 978 visits, compared with between 115 479 and 166 929 ED visits, and between 2886 and 4936 hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the most accurate and precise estimate to date of the number of concussions among US children annually. SRRCs are a common injury in children. Providers in all health care settings need to be trained in concussion care. There is a need for better surveillance to enhance our understanding of the epidemiology of concussions in youth.

BACKGROUND: Each year, in the United states, approximately 900 persons die from injuries due to bicycle crashes and over 500,000 persons are treated in emergency departments. Head injury is by far the greatest risk posed to bicyclists, comprising one-third of emergency department visits, two-thirds of hospital admissions, and three-fourths of deaths. Facial injuries to cyclists occur at a rate nearly identical to that of head injuries. Although it makes inherent sense that helmets would be protective against head injury, establishing the real-world effectiveness of helmets is important. A number of case-control studies have been conducted demonstrating the effectiveness of bicycle helmets. Because of the magnitude of the problem and the potential effectiveness of bicycle helmets, the objective of this review is to determine whether bicycle helmets reduce head, brain and facial injury for bicyclists of all ages involved in a bicycle crash or fall. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether bicycle helmets reduce head, brain and facial injury for bicyclists of all ages involved in a bicycle crash or fall. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport, ERIC, NTIS, Expanded Academic Index, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Occupational Safety and Health, and Dissertations Abstracts. We checked reference lists of past reviews and review articles, studies from government agencies in the United States, Europe and Australia, and contacted colleagues from the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, World Injury Network, CDC funded Injury Control and Research Centers, and staff in injury research agencies around the world. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled studies that evaluated the effect of helmet use in a population of bicyclists who had experienced a crash. We required that studies have complete outcome ascertainment, accurate exposure measurement, appropriate selection of the comparison group and elimination or control of factors such as selection bias, observation bias and confounding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five published studies met the selection criteria. Two abstractors using a standard abstraction form independently abstracted data. Odds ratios with 95% CI were calculated for the protective effect of helmet for head and facial injuries. Study results are presented individually. Head and brain injury results were also summarized using meta-analysis techniques. MAIN RESULTS: No randomized controlled trials were found. This review identified five well conducted case control studies which met our selection criteria. Helmets provide a 63%-88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are reduced 65%. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Helmets reduce bicycle-related head and facial injuries for bicyclists of all ages involved in all types of crashes including those involving motor vehicles.

When a study outcome is rare in all strata used for an analysis, the odds ratio estimate of causal effects will approximate the risk ratio; therefore, odds ratios from most case-control studies can be interpreted as risk ratios. However, if a study outcome is common, the odds ratio will be further from 1 than the risk ratio. There is debate regarding the merits of risk ratios compared with odds ratios for the analysis of trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies with common outcomes. Odds ratios are conveniently symmetrical with regard to the outcome definition; the odds ratio for outcome Y is the inverse of the odds ratio for the outcome not Y. Risk ratios lack this symmetry, so it may be necessary to present 1 risk ratio for outcome Y and another for outcome not Y. Risk ratios, but not odds ratios, have a mathematical property called collapsibility; this means that the size of the risk ratio will not change if adjustment is made for a variable that is not a confounder. Because of collapsibility, the risk ratio, assuming no confounding, has a useful interpretation as the ratio change in average risk due to exposure among the exposed. Because odds ratios are not collapsible, they usually lack any interpretation either as the change in average odds or the average change in odds (the average odds ratio).

BACKGROUND: Regional trauma systems were proposed 2 decades ago to reduce injury mortality rates. Because of the difficulties in evaluating their effectiveness and the methodologic limitations of previously published studies, the relative benefits of establishing an organized system of trauma care remains controversial. METHODS: Data on trauma systems were obtained from a survey of state emergency medical service directors, review of state statutes and a previously published trauma system inventory. Injury mortality rates were obtained from national vital statistics data, whereas motor vehicle crash (MVC) mortality rates were obtained from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Mortality rates were compared between states with and without trauma systems. RESULTS: As of 1995, 22 states had regional trauma systems. States with trauma systems had a 9% lower crude injury mortality rate than those without. When MVC-related mortality was evaluated separately, there was a 17% reduction in deaths. After controlling for age, state speed laws, restraint laws, and population distribution, there remained a 9% reduction in MVC-related mortality rate in states with a trauma system. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that a state trauma system is associated with a reduction in the risk of death caused by injury. The effect is most evident on analysis of MVC deaths.

Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in Infants, Children, and Adolescents in 2019: Some Overdue Progress, Many Remaining Questions, and Exciting Ongoing Work in the Field of Traumatic Brain Injury Research In this Supplement to Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, we are pleased to present the Third Edition of the Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). This body of work updates the Second Edition of the guidelines that was published in 2012 (1). It represents a substantial effort by a multidisciplinary group of individuals assembled to reflect the team approach to the treatment of these complex, critically ill patients that is essential to optimizing critical care and improving outcomes. This work also represents the strong and always-evolving partnership between investigators from the medical and research communities, forged in Chicago in 2000, from which the first pediatric TBI guidelines were developed. The mutual trust and respect we share have been the foundation of our commitment to bringing evidence-based care to children with TBI. Updating these guidelines was particularly exciting to the individuals who have participated in the previous two editions because several new studies have been published which begin to address a number of major gaps in the pediatric TBI literature—gaps that were specifically identified as targets for future research in earlier editions. For example, we are now able to include reports on the effects of commonly used sedatives and analgesics on intracranial pressure (ICP). Similarly, initial head-to-head comparisons of the influence of agents in routine “real world” use such as hypertonic saline (HTS), fentanyl, and others now inform these guidelines (2,3). A total of 48 new studies were included in this Third Edition. Although some progress has been made and should be celebrated, overall the level of evidence informing these guidelines remains low. High-quality randomized studies that could support level I recommendations remain absent; the available evidence produced only three level II recommendations, whereas most recommendations are level III, supported by low-quality evidence. Based in part on a number of requests from the readership to individual clinical investigators, we have included a companion article in the regular pages of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine that presents a “Critical Pathway” algorithm of care for both first-tier and second-tier (refractory intracranial hypertension) approaches. The algorithm reflects both the evidence-based recommendations from these guidelines and consensus-based expert opinion, vetted by the clinical investigators, where evidence was not available. An algorithm was provided in the First but not Second Editions of the guidelines, and we believe that given the new reports available, along with the existing gaps in evidence, a combination of evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations provides additional and much-needed guidance for clinicians at the bedside. The algorithm also addresses a number of issues that are important but were not previously covered in the guidelines, given the lack of research and the focus on evidence-based recommendations. This includes addressing issues such as a stepwise approach to elevated ICP, differences in tempo of therapy in different types of patients, scenarios with a rapidly escalating need for ICP-directed therapy in the setting of impending herniation, integration of multiple monitoring targets, and other complex issues such as minimal versus optimal therapeutic targets and approaches to weaning therapies. We hope that the readership finds the algorithm document helpful, recognizing that it represents a challenging albeit important step. Designing and developing this pediatric TBI evidence-based guidelines document required an expert administrative management team, and to that end, we are extremely grateful to the staff of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University, for their vital contribution to this work. We are also grateful to the Brain Trauma Foundation and the Department of Defense for supporting the development and publication of these guidelines documents. We are grateful to the endorsing societies for recognizing the importance of this work and for the considerable work of the clinical investigators in constructing the final document. We are also pleased to have with the of and the that is the document of these guidelines for We are also grateful to for as along with the of this final document. we of the clinical investigators and on this We believe that the considerable and effort to this important to clinicians and the of children with TBI. investigators provided of at the of the which were at the of clinical made provided on for which were an it is important to that these guidelines were as the and in Pediatric TBI of the most important in the of pediatric was to a The of of pediatric TBI and is of the in TBI as a This new in the importance of TBI has in part from the of the of TBI the particularly and from the need for new and new for TBI in both children and In the between TBI and a number of have the in have to additional support of TBI and have produced an level of research in TBI and a for new We that the of along with of other and research in the new and the medical management of and with and of the recommendations in these documents. We that we for the team of clinical investigators in the to additional evidence future updates of these The for developing these guidelines were in two a and of the and use of that as the foundation for evidence-based recommendations. guidelines are the of the evidence-based Based on of the team of clinical investigators and is in and to the of evidence-based to recommendations, and is to the between evidence and It is important that this is to and future research that the evidence for TBI these guidelines only recommendations on available evidence, most not for of clinical begin with evidence-based guidelines, and use clinical and to the gaps where evidence is The is to use the evidence and the evidence-based recommendations as the to which and be to to clinical Research In a from developing this Third Edition of the guidelines, the team in a and produced the algorithm for treatment of TBI in pediatric for guidelines, and future The the of from available evidence to a The to gaps that future research and consensus-based clinical that both of which to a of new the we used to the and evidence-based recommendations. The used to the algorithm are in that document and of the for the for studies for the of and publication The for are as TBI The team to from the Second Edition of these new were The are in three that are to TBI in and pressure therapy and for This Edition. for this are and are provided in The clinical investigators and team identified three important for pediatric patients with overall new were to the evidence for The of was to are provided as level In some from the were not included in this Edition. for previously included studies was on of that our earlier work Similarly, we recommendations from the Edition the provided new and of The research who on the Second Edition and the for that and the for this Third Edition. was from to of and an was to include published and of by that were not in the were and were included in the final The is in and for in the were by two of the were for at on the team article and it the The included and for were also by clinical investigators who the on and were available for by The for were as the was pediatric patients with TBI as of and the an included with that included other TBI were evidence was not available. between were by a A of studies is in of and evidence from studies that important between two between an group and a group that the of in this pediatric patients with TBI. evidence was not available, evidence was used to support a evidence has been in previous work by this team and other evidence-based In this we included two types of evidence. in an Health In some is a lack of evidence that of a treatment in such as but is evidence in an which is with The most for the treatment of TBI is management of studies in the of this that patients is at a have and a the clinical investigators to of as an important and use the available evidence to support the recommendations monitoring and for to and evidence of this were used in three for this of the and In of these an was used as the evidence was that evidence was available management of the with For the was evidence that patients with was used to support the For the were of were pediatric studies that to outcomes. was evidence of an between and studies that this were used as evidence. For the were and and In some evidence was we studies that included patients with and and the to different our is the in the the of the in the the of the of are differences in to influence the In these differences influence the In this evidence from studies with was included in the and and evidence was it is in the the of the body of evidence. of included studies were for for which is an approach to the of an individual This is a of It is an approach to and studies in of the and issues such as and The used for this are in the for the randomized studies of and the as evidence on the combination of and is the and is to includes and is the and is given to low-quality to low-quality and treatment and other in were the of a as were from studies by a of the team and for by a was the and of included are in the of for are available The final of the evidence is the of individual studies that the clinical investigators and the team use to recommendations. This is for in the of the the and the of and For treatment the clinical investigators identified important clinical The studies in were to This the of the and the were several studies that the could be The of this is included in the of the of for For this we not for which was to For this the evidence was of the of the of the body of evidence the of the included individual the of the the evidence provided is and the of the of the outcomes. The and are and are given in In the number of studies and number of included are Based on an overall is made as to the of the body of evidence is The of the body of evidence for is included in a in the recommendations. of This the of the individual It studies are and is the to which the and are It is are are is It is not the body of evidence of a We as the is the as the of and the are clinical outcomes. is as is the of the for a given is low. this is on the of used in a but include of the of other of the of used to are a to the body of evidence. The are as that the evidence reflects the research is to the in the of that the evidence reflects the research the in the of and the that the evidence reflects the research is to the in the of and is to the is not a A of of the body of evidence a the importance of the and these and The are provided to the that are but are not as two studies for a the overall of the body of evidence be as because is the Similarly, studies that evidence only low-quality evidence In some the body of evidence be a but the A a body of evidence it is a a body of evidence it is a with a and evidence the is and the of the of is low. is the to which research are for informing recommendations for a the that is the of the is important to on the and the is is for focus on the of the to which patients are the and the for care where could a be the the for the be that The of the setting in which a was also be important to For example, a in a not be to other on the are to the of the of the is to the care setting of to be include the and the of level of The and of are because it is that the patients, and available are different In this we the of individual studies in the of the of and the recommendations. of of studies the evidence on which the recommendations are our of evidence is but not for the development of recommendations. recommendations were made a in evidence. evidence was it could be used to inform recommendations was on the of the body of evidence and of were in which evidence was but the was and our to the evidence recommendations. a was not the evidence was included for future because in the new studies be in in the of the of the body of evidence. of in this are as level level level The level of is by the of the of the body of evidence, the of the included The were on the of the body of evidence as I recommendations were on a body of evidence. II recommendations were on a body of evidence. recommendations were on a low-quality body of evidence. could in a level a body of with In this was not used to a given the lack of and in this we issues that were identified and by the clinical was used in where were studies identified because the body of evidence major the evidence was recommendations were and of the of new and the team for to two clinical The clinical investigators the included studies and the recommendations, provided and additional studies for team the and new and provided the clinical investigators with new and a of the evidence for In a in was and by the Based on these the team the of The of and the other of the guidelines was to clinical investigators for and and to the and the document. were made on from the clinical investigators, the Third Edition and an were to the Pediatric Critical Care Medicine for A was also by of the of of Guidelines in with the clinical investigators and team, to publication in the of I and II was evidence to support a level I II for this of monitoring is Edition. are from the Second Edition to the recommendations. new studies were to the evidence for this to the TBI is a of a of that of and and of and Brain from and the of the to intracranial and of represents a in the of TBI the in both and TBI have been care management that on the of and medical and treatment of intracranial that a with of monitoring in by ICP-directed medical in a two Similarly, TBI in an which the overall of monitoring in these patients to the of to are by the therapeutic that have been with monitoring and have not been to include and treatment of and treatment of to and and studies an between intracranial and TBI It is intracranial to intracranial is the of pressure and is the most available of The of monitoring as a of and versus of is also The lack of on monitoring the of the recommendations in the previous of the Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Severe TBI This of strong evidence in children is with of management in the and In a in in patients in therapy therapy Although the in this are not by the patients and have the evidence for monitoring in TBI and of at individual A of and for such patients and with guidelines recommendations In the in only of children with TBI with only of clinical for such children monitoring The use of monitoring in children with TBI be use of monitoring in only of patients in this group at multiple in the of is also in the use of for the treatment of intracranial at different a is required to have an of for critical care the of monitoring are to be supported of the of the of included for this address the the from the to inform treatment for pediatric patients with TBI. patients as the of and as the of low-quality evidence to support the two studies studies and three treatment provided evidence that is with outcomes. The overall of the body of evidence is of the of The studies evidence from in the The were in that two for patients who are and the The studies and treatment were in the and were major of the studies provided evidence to support the studies from the Second Edition provided evidence that patients with have of Severe TBI at of A number of studies a of intracranial in children with TBI Some of these studies identified other clinical in combination with TBI in a are of a of intracranial In these patients, on is for the of intracranial In a of patients of from of children an initial but at some their care also be in children with TBI who not who studies that children with TBI are at for intracranial have been identified which the of intracranial monitoring in this and to intracranial are not available. in Pediatric Severe studies pediatric patients an between intracranial and of 48 patients to a between intracranial and but in this children with were and with studies that is an important It also a strong both and as a of in the management of pediatric TBI and studies evidence for the for this patients as the of and as the of and and that clinical were with the use of monitoring for the of intracranial and that the use of monitoring versus monitoring was with a in in patients but also monitoring of was in only of patients who monitoring the monitoring group a and In of the Pediatric Health that with monitoring with of a by a that two with monitoring and in between between monitoring and but an between monitoring and to The group treatment the and that the could be to differences between the that have to the treatment studies evidence to support the for this For example, two studies of treatment that clinical are with of intracranial A of children with TBI with of and that children was children was intracranial hypertension) A of a TBI that and in children with TBI were with intracranial to In this of ICP, of treatment was to be The to and use monitoring on the and from the that evidence-based are other that a with intracranial it is that is to intracranial is that of present care is on and treatment of elevated ICP, of elevated with monitoring is to be of for and of treatment the use of an Although only evidence for to these studies support the of management of intracranial with and Guidelines with the recommendations in this the Edition of the guidelines provides a level to of I and II was evidence to support a level I II for this monitoring is a level is was evidence to support a for the use of a of to outcomes. of should only be for patients with to such as and for patients who not have a of the Edition. are from the Second Edition to the recommendations. The are new to this new treatment were to the evidence for this monitoring and In children with the to monitoring of such as and of patients treatment and is to and the use of these monitoring be as part of optimal critical care of the of the of included for this the use of to for children with and should be for of and studies were identified that the use of monitoring and their use to in outcomes. treatment and the evidence for the a monitoring was The studies were with and evidence. The overall of the body of evidence is of the of The included studies were and at included a of for pediatric were in the and two in The of the evidence is of studies two new and two from the Second provided evidence to support the included patients from of the treatment of for of and The studies that on this for an between and of monitoring of children with TBI who were to a at were and the and for outcomes. the was and the of in patients with intracranial and the need for studies to be a complex between and used a treatment of and an of with which was for In of a of the patients, that in patients in to in were also an between and this evidence that this monitoring is it be to the of Although these studies that are with to some the complex and the studies were not to the of to to the of to other Guidelines to evidence, are recommendations in the Edition of the guidelines monitoring of I and II was evidence to support a level I II for this the of elevated on the of a initial of the is not in pediatric a the and initial is not for is evidence of the Edition. is new to this new and treatment to the evidence for this of the is the for of intracranial of for with TBI. is in initial and of intracranial is these patients The of and are with of with in children in a to Although an has been an to ICP, a remains the of intracranial in patients with a In the Second and Third Editions of the TBI guidelines, monitoring was for patients with a initial two were pressure The First and Second Editions of the Pediatric TBI Guidelines this for the Edition of the TBI guidelines, this was to lack of evidence and for monitoring has been for and children with TBI. An initial is to intracranial need for and for of intracranial routine is a in children with TBI is is evidence of an to of the of the of included for this the initial should be used to intracranial and routine the initial should be used to The overall of the body of evidence is and is on new treatment new and from the Second Edition of these guidelines of the of The recommendations are supported by three studies is of new and from the Second evidence to support the recommendations of of to a of to pediatric TBI to with monitoring and to to be by initial were in of children with initial and and of with and to of children with an initial but who were to by a pediatric initial the first of pressure This of patients a and low-quality evidence to support the to not the of intracranial on a initial of to and a of children with and TBI a routine with for the patients who of intracranial on two in patients who were and of intracranial TBI. The other three were because of and of The of monitoring an initial was not in with of intracranial versus with pediatric patients from to for and to were routine of these and patients a supported by of the of of a and three for additional were on a clinical not as routine reports by and and were studies at a for routine initial also the of evidence is to support the use of to Guidelines The guidelines not include as a for of of I and II was evidence to support a level I II for this of a of is Edition. are from the Second Edition to the recommendations. new studies were to the evidence for this and from the Second Edition was In children with is to in ICP, as intracranial management of TBI in the is on the management of and of as by the at intracranial is to care of these of intracranial is also to be important to to a of in that to in are to be some have that in patients of to for to treatment Based in part on an treatment of has been used in most for for and are in particularly in and but optimal in the is It has been in children TBI that the of of is in children versus not children have For example, the in between and the of is in and children it is in This the need to a therapeutic to for and children with children with TBI. Although an of is an be for and It should also be that some of the studies the used that are such as in of the of the and in pediatric management need to be in some of the of the of included for this the the for intracranial to the outcomes. The evidence of and two studies evidence The is and a overall of evidence for of of the of The included studies were in and of the have and most have other that their of two new and from the Second Edition evidence to support the recommendations for of of the to the studies different for The patients in who were the of were a of the pediatric patients in of and with and used of was in at in In a of a of treatment for at different to for for for in children with versus but not the of different by on studies used the of as the of intracranial in on for 48 patients and at and for patients with The a total of patients, in patients with to and treatment In a of pediatric patients, used the of as the of intracranial and in the versus group the at In a of pediatric patients, that an of was the of the at A with studies of is the studies were with an for as the a therapeutic for some In approaches were used to for in the between and important was that was approach to the between and the of intracranial TBI. a given were the available evidence provides a level Guidelines The Edition of the TBI guidelines provides a level that a combination of and clinical and be used to management This is also in pediatric for of I and II was evidence to support a level I II for this to a at a of is A between and is to that the of is not be with at the and at the of this Edition. are from the Second Edition to the recommendations. the included studies are new to this new and three new studies were to the evidence for this by the the pressure in in the is and with for to the of in by which is a of in is a in monitoring of and ICP, be and by that to both and The optimal for therapy remains are differences in and from pediatric are in we need to are targets for that should be used critical care management of pediatric TBI. are three in from studies for the of is is an that should be in be a with the of which to of for and and the of these differences to a of to the between the two the of not only reflects intracranial and but also the level that is by at the bedside. is considerable in the with respect to their of the that is used in the is different in of the studies and only the of the reports not these are included should be the from the pediatric TBI studies and the to treatment for TBI. of the of the of included for this the are the and for are and is the for studies provided low-quality evidence supporting a of and use of Although provided supporting use of it was not to a level II from two studies was to a to of the of of the studies were published The body of evidence included studies and use of from multiple included the and Although two studies on the a of are major of the studies in the evidence to support the recommendations for this new two new and studies from the Second Edition and of of and in the and for and A of to therapy for the evidence but for the evidence the first of care as as for the total of care The used in patients and in patients and

The first in this series of five papers concerns the evaluation and management of renal injuries. The authors of this paper come from four continents and seven countries, and they reviewed all papers on renal injury published between 1966 and April 2002. The results of the authors’ deliberations are present here as a consensus document. OBJECTIVE To determine the optimal evaluation and management of renal injuries by review of the world's English‐language literature on the subject. METHODS A consensus conference convened by the World Health Organization and the Societé Internationale d’Urologie met to critically review reports of the diagnosis and treatment of renal trauma. The English‐language literature about renal trauma was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search obtained. Evidence‐based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of renal trauma were made with reference to a five‐point scale. RESULTS There were many Level 3 and 4 citations, few Level 2, and one Level 1 which supported clinical practice patterns. Findings of nearly 200 reviewed citations are summarized. CONCLUSIONS Published reports on renal trauma still rely heavily on expert opinion and single‐institution retrospective case series. Prospective trials of the most significant issues, when possible, might improve the quality of evidence that dictates the behaviour of practitioners.

CONTEXT: Each year, approximately 5000 infants are born in the United States with moderate-to-profound, bilateral permanent hearing loss (PHL). Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) has been proposed as a means to speed diagnosis and treatment and thereby improve language outcomes in these children. OBJECTIVES: To identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the evidence supporting UNHS and to compare the additional benefits and harms of UNHS with those of selective screening of high-risk newborns. DATA SOURCES: We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO databases for relevant articles published from 1994 to August 2001, using terms for hearing disorders, infants or newborns, screening, and relevant treatments. We contacted experts and reviewed reference lists to identify additional articles, including those published before 1994. STUDY SELECTION: We included controlled and observational studies of (1) the accuracy, yield, and harms of screening using otoacoustic emissions (OAEs), auditory brainstem response (ABR), or both in the general newborn population and (2) the effects of screening or early identification and treatment on language outcomes. Of an original 340 articles identified, 19 articles, including 1 controlled trial, met these inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on population, test performance, outcomes, and methodological quality were extracted by 2 authors (D.C.T., H.M.) using prespecified criteria developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force. We queried authors when information needed to assess study quality was missing. DATA SYNTHESIS: Good-quality studies show that from 2041 to 2794 low-risk and 86 to 208 high-risk newborns were screened to find 1 case of moderate-to-profound PHL. The best estimate of positive predictive value was 6.7%. Six percent to 15% of infants who are missed by the screening tests are subsequently diagnosed with bilateral PHL. In a trial of UNHS vs clinical screening at age 8 months, UNHS increased the proportion of infants with moderate-to-severe hearing loss diagnosed by age 10 months (57% vs 14%) but did not reduce the rate of diagnosis after age 18 months. No good-quality controlled study has compared UNHS with selective screening of high-risk newborns. In fair- to poor-quality cohort studies, intervention before age 6 months was associated with improved language and communication skills by ages 2 to 5 years. These studies had unclear criteria for selecting subjects, and none compared an inception cohort of low-risk newborns identified by screening with those identified in usual care, making it impossible to exclude selection bias as an explanation for the results. In a mathematical model based on the literature review, we estimated that extending screening to low-risk infants would detect 1 additional case before age 10 months for every 1441 low-risk infants screened, and result in treatment before 10 months of 1 additional case for every 2401 low-risk infants screened. With UNHS, 254 newborns would be referred for audiological evaluation because of false-positive second-stage screening test results vs 48 for selective screening. CONCLUSIONS: Modern screening tests for hearing impairment can improve identification of newborns with PHL, but the efficacy of UNHS to improve long-term language outcomes remains uncertain.

BACKGROUND: We characterized the relative risk of a wide range of diagnoses in women with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) compared with never-abused women. METHODS: The sample comprised 3568 English-speaking women who were randomly sampled from a large US health plan and who agreed to participate in a telephone survey to assess past-year IPV history using questions from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (physical, sexual, and psychological abuse) and the Women's Experience with Battering Scale. Medical and psychosocial diagnoses in the past year were determined using automated data from health plan records. We estimated the relative risk of receiving diagnoses for women with a past-year IPV history compared with women with no IPV history. RESULTS: In age-adjusted models, compared with never-abused women, abused women had consistently significantly increased relative risks of these disorders: psychosocial/mental (substance use, 5.89; family and social problems, 4.96; depression, 3.26; anxiety/neuroses, 2.73; tobacco use, 2.31); musculoskeletal (degenerative joint disease, 1.71; low back pain, 1.61; trauma-related joint disorders, 1.59; cervical pain, 1.54; acute sprains and strains, 1.35); and female reproductive (menstrual disorders, 1.84; vaginitis/vulvitis/cervicitis, 1.56). Abused women had a more than 3-fold increased risk of being diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease (3.15) and a 2-fold increased risk of lacerations (2.17) as well as increased risk of acute respiratory tract infection (1.33), gastroesophageal reflux disease (1.76), chest pain (1.53), abdominal pain (1.48), urinary tract infections (1.79), headaches (1.57), and contusions/abrasions (1.72). CONCLUSION: Past-year IPV history was strongly associated with a variety of medical and psychosocial conditions observed in clinical settings.

CONTEXT: Although posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol abuse frequently occur among acutely injured trauma survivors, few real-world interventions have targeted these disorders. OBJECTIVE: We tested the effectiveness of a multifaceted collaborative care (CC) intervention for PTSD and alcohol abuse. DESIGN: Randomized effectiveness trial. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited a population-based sample of 120 male and female injured surgical inpatients 18 or older at a level I trauma center. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to the CC intervention (n = 59) or the usual care (UC) control condition (n = 61). The CC patients received stepped care that consisted of (1) continuous postinjury case management, (2) motivational interviews targeting alcohol abuse/dependence, and (3) evidence-based pharmacotherapy and/or cognitive behavioral therapy for patients with persistent PTSD at 3 months after injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used the PTSD symptomatic criteria (PTSD Checklist) at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after injury, and alcohol abuse/dependence (Composite International Diagnostic Interview) at baseline and 6 and 12 months after injury. RESULTS: Random-coefficient regression analyses demonstrated that over time, CC patients were significantly less symptomatic compared with UC patients with regard to PTSD (P =.01) and alcohol abuse/dependence (P =.048). The CC group demonstrated no difference (-0.07%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.2% to 4.3%) in the adjusted rates of change in PTSD from baseline to 12 months, whereas the UC group had a 6% increase (95% CI, 3.1%-9.3%) during the year. The CC group showed on average a decrease in the rate of alcohol abuse/dependence of -24.2% (95% CI, -19.9% to -28.6%), whereas the UC group had on average a 12.9% increase (95% CI, 8.2%-17.7%) during the year. CONCLUSIONS: Early mental health care interventions can be feasibly and effectively delivered from trauma centers. Future investigations that refine routine acute care treatment procedures may improve the quality of mental health care for Americans injured in the wake of individual and mass trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate health care utilization and costs associated with the type of intimate partner violence (IPV) women experience by the timing of their abuse. METHODS: A total of 3,333 women (ages 18-64) were randomly sampled from the membership files of a large health plan located in a metropolitan area and participated in a telephone survey to assess IPV history, including the type of IPV (physical IPV or nonphysical abuse only) and the timing of the abuse (ongoing; recent, not ongoing but occurring in the past 5 years; remote, ending at least 5 years prior). Automated annual health care utilization and costs were assembled over 7.4 years for women with physical IPV and nonphysical abuse only by the time period during which their abuse occurred (ongoing, recent, remote), and compared with those of never-abused women (reference group). RESULTS: Mental health utilization was significantly higher for women with physical or nonphysical abuse only compared with never-abused women-with the highest use among women with ongoing abuse (relative risk for those with ongoing abuse: physical, 2.61; nonphysical, 2.18). Physically abused women also used more emergency department, hospital outpatient, primary care, pharmacy, and specialty services; for emergency department, pharmacy, and specialty care, utilization was the highest for women with ongoing abuse. Total annual health care costs were higher for physically abused women, with the highest costs for ongoing abuse (42 percent higher compared with nonabused women), followed by recent (24 percent higher) and remote abuse (19 percent higher). Women with recent nonphysical abuse only had annual costs that were 33 percent higher than nonabused women. CONCLUSION: Physical and nonphysical abuse contributed to higher health care utilization, particularly mental health services utilization.

The digital world is generating data at a staggering and still increasing rate. While these "big data" have unlocked novel opportunities to understand public health, they hold still greater potential for research and practice. This review explores several key issues that have arisen around big data. First, we propose a taxonomy of sources of big data to clarify terminology and identify threads common across some subtypes of big data. Next, we consider common public health research and practice uses for big data, including surveillance, hypothesis-generating research, and causal inference, while exploring the role that machine learning may play in each use. We then consider the ethical implications of the big data revolution with particular emphasis on maintaining appropriate care for privacy in a world in which technology is rapidly changing social norms regarding the need for (and even the meaning of) privacy. Finally, we make suggestions regarding structuring teams and training to succeed in working with big data in research and practice.

The risk ratio can be a useful statistic for summarizing the results of cross-sectional, cohort, and randomized trial studies. I discuss several methods for estimating adjusted risk ratios and show how they can be executed in Stata, including 1) Mantel–Haenszel and inverse-variance stratified methods; 2) generalized linear regression with a log link and binomial distribution; 3) generalized linear regression with a log link, normal distribution, and robust variance estimator; 4) Poisson regression with a robust variance estimator; 5) Cox proportional hazards regression with a robust variance estimator; 6) standardized risk ratios from logistic, probit, complementary log-log, and log-log regression; and 7) a substitution method. Advantages and drawbacks are noted for some methods.