Diaz, Michael J.

(1) Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of injury and mortality worldwide, carrying an estimated cost of $38 billion in the United States alone. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been investigated as a standardized biomarker that can be used to predict outcomes of TBI. The aim of this review was to determine the prognostic utility of NLR among patients admitted for TBI. (2) Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in November 2022 to retrieve articles regarding the use of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a prognostic measure in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. Inclusion criteria included studies reporting outcomes of TBI patients with associated NLR values. Exclusion criteria were studies reporting only non-primary data, those insufficiently disaggregated to extract NLR data, and non-English or cadaveric studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess for the presence of bias in included studies. (3) Results: Following the final study selection 19 articles were included for quantitative and qualitative analysis. The average age was 46.25 years. Of the 7750 patients, 73% were male. Average GCS at presentation was 10.51. There was no significant difference in the NLR between surgical vs. non-surgical cohorts (SMD 2.41 95% CI −1.82 to 6.63, p = 0.264). There was no significant difference in the NLR between bleeding vs. non-bleeding cohorts (SMD 4.84 95% CI −0.26 to 9.93, p = 0.0627). There was a significant increase in the NLR between favorable vs. non-favorable cohorts (SMD 1.31 95% CI 0.33 to 2.29, p = 0.0090). (4) Conclusions: Our study found that NLR was only significantly predictive for adverse outcomes in TBI patients and not surgical treatment or intracranial hemorrhage, making it nonetheless an affordable alternative for physicians to assess patient prognosis.

Objectives Several studies suggest the sensitivity of chest computed tomography (CT) is far greater than that of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in diagnosing COVID-19 patients, and therefore, CT should be included as a primary diagnostic tool. This systematic review aims to stratify studies as high or low risk of bias to determine the true sensitivity of CT for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection according to the unbiased (low risk) studies, a topic of particular importance given the insufficient quantity of RT-PCR kits in many countries. We focus on sensitivity as that is the chief advantage perceived of CT. Materials and Methods This systematic review involved searching the PubMed and Google Scholar databases for articles conducted and published between January 1 and April 15, 2020. The quality assessment tool QUADAS-2 was used to stratify studies according to their risk of bias, and exclusion criteria included not providing the information deemed relevant for such a stratification, such as not indicating if the patients were symptomatic or asymptomatic, or identifying the source of the specimen for the reference standard, RT-PCR (eg, nasal, oropharyngeal, etc). Sensitivity values were then extracted, and random effects meta-analyses were performed. Results Of 641 search results, 37 studies (n = 9610 patients) were included in the analysis. The mean sensitivity of RT-PCR for COVID-19 reported by the biased studies was 70% (n = 5409/7 studies; 95% confidence interval [CI], 43–97; I 2 = 99.1%), compared with 78% by unbiased studies (n = 534/4 studies; 95% CI, 69–87, I 2 = 89.9%). For chest CT, the mean sensitivity reported by biased studies was 94% (n = 3371 patients/24 studies; 95% CI, 92–96; I 2 = 93.1%), compared with 75% by unbiased studies (n = 957/10 studies; 95% CI, 67–83; I 2 = 89.5%). Conclusions The difference between the sensitivities of CT and RT-PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection is lower than previously thought, as after stratifying the studies, the true sensitivity for CT based on the unbiased studies is limited.