Back

Mortality Among Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ruhazwe, F. J.; Mumbere, B.; Michael, M.; Hakizimana, T.; Elna, O.

2026-10-14 surgery
10.64898/2026.10.12.26365294 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective To estimate the mortality proportion among patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) and to assess variation in mortality according to geographical region, study characteristics, patient populations, and mortality assessment time points. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to January 2026. Eligibility criteria Studies reporting mortality among patients with severe TBI were eligible. Severe TBI was defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of [&le;]8, equivalent to GCS <9 or GCS 3-8. Studies involving mixed TBI severity were included only when data for patients with severe TBI could be separately extracted. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Mortality proportions were pooled using a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and the I2 statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken where sufficient data were available. Results Twenty-five studies comprising 12,829 patients with severe TBI were included in the systematic review. Across studies, 5,550 deaths were reported. Mortality proportions ranged from 17.5% to 71.1%. The pooled mortality proportion was 40.6% (95% CI 35.7% to 45.7%), with substantial heterogeneity (I2=96.8%, p<0.001). Mortality varied considerably according to geographical region and timing of outcome assessment, with higher estimates generally observed in African settings and at longer follow-up periods. Conclusion Mortality among patients with severe TBI remains substantial, with approximately two in five patients dying across the included studies. However, the very high heterogeneity indicates that the pooled estimate should not be interpreted as a universal mortality risk. Differences in healthcare resources, patient characteristics, injury severity, management practices, and mortality assessment time points may contribute to the observed variation.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.