Skip to main content

Primary versus early secondary referral to a specialized neurotrauma center in patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury: a CENTER TBI study



Prehospital care for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) varies with some emergency medical systems recommending direct transport of patients with moderate to severe TBI to hospitals with specialist neurotrauma care (SNCs). The aim of this study is to assess variation in levels of early secondary referral within European SNCs and to compare the outcomes of directly admitted and secondarily transferred patients.


Patients with moderate and severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale < 13) from the prospective European CENTER-TBI study were included in this study. All participating hospitals were specialist neuroscience centers. First, adjusted between-country differences were analysed using random effects logistic regression where early secondary referral was the dependent variable, and a random intercept for country was included. Second, the adjusted effect of early secondary referral on survival to hospital discharge and functional outcome [6 months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE)] was estimated using logistic and ordinal mixed effects models, respectively.


A total of 1347 moderate/severe TBI patients from 53 SNCs in 18 European countries were included. Of these 1347 patients, 195 (14.5%) were admitted after early secondary referral. Secondarily referred moderate/severe TBI patients presented more often with a CT abnormality: mass lesion (52% vs. 34%), midline shift (54% vs. 36%) and acute subdural hematoma (77% vs. 65%). After adjusting for case-mix, there was a large European variation in early secondary referral, with a median OR of 1.69 between countries. Early secondary referral was not associated with functional outcome (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78–1.69), nor with survival at discharge (1.05, 0.58–1.90).


Across Europe, substantial practice variation exists in the proportion of secondarily referred TBI patients at SNCs that is not explained by case mix. Within SNCs early secondary referral does not seem to impact functional outcome and survival after stabilisation in a non-specialised hospital. Future research should identify which patients with TBI truly benefit from direct transportation.


Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains an important cause of injury-related death and disability [1]. The incidence of TBI is increasing as the patient population becomes older [2, 3]. Care in specialized neurotrauma centers (SNC) with neurosurgical and neurocritical care expertise can reduce the incidence of death and disability from head injury, especially in more severe TBI [4,5,6]. However, not all TBI patients are directly transported to a SNC if this is not the nearest facility. In the prehospital setting Emergency Medical Services (EMS) should decide whether these patients should be stabilized at the nearby non specialist acute hospital (NSAH) or directly transported to a more distant SNC. After stabilization and computed tomography (CT) scan at a NSAH—the decision is made regarding the need for specialist neurotrauma care (including neurosurgery and neurointensive cares [7]) via secondary transfer. Stabilizing the patient at a nearby NSAH may cause an important time delay to critical neurosurgical and neurocritical care interventions which could adversely affect the outcome of TBI patients [8]. On the other hand prolonged primary transportation to a more distant specialist center could delay direct access to critical interventions such as drug assisted intubation, which prevents hypoxia and hypotension, that can induce secondary brain injury [9]. This is pertinent particularly to the majority of EMS staff who do not have this advanced airway skill [10]. Early neurosurgery might be a lower priority than early treatment of secondary insults such as hypoxia and hypotension [11]—the latter being addressed by hospital based damage control measures and balanced transfusion. The decision which patients should be conveyed directly to an SNC is made on-scene by EMS staff based on clinical parameters, injury characteristics and the local policy through trauma triage tools [10]. A systematic review on this issue failed to identify clear benefit from direct transportation to SNCs [11]. A recent randomized trial also failed to identify benefit as the majority of patients who bypass the NSAH are subsequently shown not to have a brain injury on CT scan, diluting the impact of early access to neurotrauma care [12, 13].

Notwithstanding this equivocal evidence base, several international guidelines recommend direct transportation of patients with moderate/severe TBI to hospitals with availability of neurosurgical care in order to reduce the time delay [14,15,16]. There might be substantial variation in referral practice between regions and countries. It remains unclear how long term outcomes of secondarily referred patients relate to outcomes of patients directly transported to a SNC, also in terms of secondary brain damage associated with hypoxia and hypotension.

Therefore, the aims of this study are, (1) to quantify European practice variation in early secondary referrals, and (2) to determine the association of arriving by early secondary referral with hypoxia and/or hypotension, survival at discharge and functional outcome at 6 months.


Study design

The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study is a multicenter, longitudinal, prospective, observational study in 22 countries across Europe and Israel which enrolled patients between December 2014 and December 2017 [17]. All study sites are specialist neurotrauma centers [17]. The core cohort includes patients presenting within 24 h of injury, with a clinical diagnosis of TBI and indication for CT. Data for the CENTER-TBI study has been collected through the Quesgen e-CRF (Quesgen Systems Inc, USA), hosted on the INCF platform and extracted via the INCF Neurobot tool (INCF, Sweden).

We validated the generalizability of our analysis in the Center-TBI registry, comprising of all patients presenting at one of the study centers between December 2014 and December 2017 with a clinical diagnosis of TBI and indication for CT scan [17]. For the registry, informed consent was not necessary and collected purely administrative data which resulted in more included patients.

Version 2.1 of the core and registry Neurobot data sets were used for this study. Prehospital data was collected by physicians at the study centers. Policy and center specific data was collected by provider profiling questionnaires, filled in by the leading researchers of each study center [18]. Relevant questions from the provider profiling questionnaires to explain regional differences were the existence of a prehospital triage tool concerning direct transportation to more distant specialist neurotrauma centres and level of education of the prehospital staff.

Ethical approval was obtained for each recruiting site. Consent was obtained for all patients enrolled in the Core study. The list of sites, Ethical Committees, approval numbers and approval dates can be found on the website:

Patient selection

We included all patients with moderate/severe TBI when presenting to the study center (defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 13 or intubated [19]) who were transported by ambulance or helicopter directly to a study center (SNC) or admitted after early secondary referral within 24 h. Both patients with isolated TBI and polytrauma patients were included. A sensitivity analysis was done by including all CENTER-TBI registry patients with moderate/severe TBI. This study was reported in accordance with the STROBE reporting guidelines [20].


The outcome measures to estimate the effect of early secondary referral were hypoxia at ED arrival (saturation < 90%), hypotension at ED arrival (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), survival at discharge and 6 months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE). For cases in which GOSE assessments had been performed outside the pre-specified window of 5–8 months, a multistate model was made by the CENTER-TBI statisticians to impute the 180-day GOSE [1, 21]. This imputed GOSE variable was made by the CENTER-TBI statisticians and was directly extracted from the CENTER-TBI Neurobot dataset [22]. This enables all CENTER-TBI researchers to use the same outcome variable. All other variables extracted from the CENTER-TBI Neurobot dataset were not imputed at the start of this research project. The following potential confounders between the relationship of transfer status and outcome were extracted from the CENTER-TBI Neurobot dataset because they were assumed to be associated with either arriving by early secondary referral or part of the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) model: age, GCS motor score at first Emergency Department (ED) arrival, pupil inequality at first ED arrival, hypoxia at ED arrival, hypotension at ED arrival, Injury Severity Score (ISS) and several CT abnormalities: traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage (tSAH), epidural hematoma, mass lesion and acute subdural hematoma [23].


Our primary outcome in order to quantify European practice variation is referral status (primary versus early secondary referral). Our secondary outcomes to determine the association between referral status and outcomes are 6 months GOSE, survival at discharge, hypoxia and hypotension. For the analysis in the CENTER-TBI registry, we used survival at discharge as outcome measure since longer term outcome data were not collected in the Registry.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were described by the median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables were described by the frequency and percentage. Missing data was imputed using multiple imputation, assuming missing at random (MAR). Missingness at random was assumed because the missingness present in our study can be accounted for by variables where there is complete information [24]. Missing data were multiply imputed for the main analyses using the ‘mice’ package. Together with the potential confounders mentioned above, referral status was included in the imputation model. Five imputed datasets were obtained. All variables, except for the outcome variables survival at discharge and the derived 6 months GOSE, were imputed. However, the outcome variables were included in the imputation model.

First, adjusted between-country differences were analyzed by adding a random intercept for country to a logistic regression model with early secondary referral as dependent variable. National variation or practice variation was quantified using the Median Odds Ratio [MOR, median odds ratio (OR) between two randomly picked countries/centers] [25].

Second, the effect of arriving by early secondary referral on hypotension and hypoxia was estimated using random effects logistic regression models. We adjusted for age, GCS motor score, pupil inequality, ISS and a random intercept for study center.

Third, the effect of arriving by early secondary referral on survival at discharge and functional outcome (6 months GOSE) was estimated using random effects regression models. For in-hospital mortality, a random effects logistic regression model was used, which included the predefined confounders and a random intercept for study center. For 6 months GOSE, a random effects ordinal regression model was used with similar structure. A subgroup analysis was done by including patients who presented with either a mass lesion or acute subdural hematoma on CT scan. This subgroup analysis used the same confounders to adjust for expect for CT abnormalities since this was the inclusion criterion of the subgroup analysis.

As a secondary sensitivity analysis in order to validate our results and assess generalizability, the same analysis was repeated in the CENTER-TBI registry with more heterogenous patients with survival at discharge as outcome measure. A random effects logistic regression model with the same case-mix variables was used with a random intercept for study center. Finally, as sensitivity analysis, the main analyses were also repeated in the complete cases only.

Continuous variables within the models were checked graphically for nonlinearity and were handled using restricted cubic splines when nonlinearity was assumed. Variables within models were checked for potential multicollinearity using correlation matrices. We did not check interactions terms because there were not enough degrees of freedom to do this.

Statistical analyses were performed in R statistical software 3.5.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computation, Vienna). The glmer function from the lme4 package was used for mixed effects logistic regression, the clmm function from the ordinal package was used for ordinal mixed effects logistic regression, and multiple imputation was performed using the MICE package.


Patient characteristics

A total of 1347 patients with moderate/severe TBI were included in this study from 53 study centers in 18 European countries. Of these 1347 patients, 195 (14.5%) were transferred from another hospital. The proportion of TBI patients arriving through early secondary referrals varied by study center from 0 to 71%. The patients secondarily referred to the study center were mostly male (146, 74.9%), with a median age of 52 years (IQR 29–67), a median GCS of 7 (IQR 3–10), were not often intubated compared to primary referred in the prehospital environment (37, 20.7%) and their median ISS was 26 (25–41). The patients who were primarily transported to study centres were also mostly male (837, 72.7%), young to middle aged (median age was 47, IQR 28–65), with a GCS of 7 (4–10), however they were often intubated on-scene (701, 62.1%);their median ISS was 34 (25–45) (Table 1, Additional file 2: Figure S1). Mode of injury differed between both patient groups where road traffic incidents with extracranial injury were more common in TBI patients arriving by primary referral. When looking at the prehospital characteristics, patients secondarily referred had fewer on scene interventions (e.g. intubation, IV fluids) compared to primarily transported patients (Table 1).

Table 1 Patient characteristics, continuous: median (IQR), categorical: number (%); including percentage missingness for patient characteristics from core dataset (N = 1347)

Patients arriving after early secondary referral had more serious abnormalities on CT imaging; 131 (77.1%) of patients arriving by secondary transfer had an acute subdural hematoma, compared to 700 (64.6%) of the directly admitted patients; 79 (52.0%) of the referred patients had a mass lesion, compared to 347 (34.1%) of those arriving directly from the scene. The average time from injury to emergency surgery was approximately 210 min for directly admitted patients compared to 345 min when arriving by early secondary referral.

The median 6 months GOSE was 4 (IQR 1–6) among primary referred patients and 4 (IQR 1–7) among early secondary referred patients. In-hospital mortality was 21.2% among primary referred patients and 19.4% among secondarily referred patients.

European practice variation of early secondary referrals

When analysing European practice variation, patients admitted to specialist neurotrauma centers in Scandinavian countries, Austria and England were more often secondarily referred (Fig. 1). Patients in the Netherlands and Italy had relatively lower adjusted chance of arriving by early secondary referral. The MOR is 1.69 which means that the OR between two randomly picked countries is 1.69 for the average TBI patient included in our study.

Fig. 1

European practice variation in early secondary referrals, adjusted for extended IMPACT model (age, GCS motor score, pupil inequality, hypoxia, hypotension, ISS, CT lesions: tSAH, epidural hematoma, mass lesion, acute subdural hematoma). Log Odds represents the chance of arriving by early secondary referral for the mean moderate/severe TBI patient compared to the mean European chance of being referred. A log-odds above 0 means more chance than average of arriving by early secondary referral, a log odds below 0 means less chance than average of arriving by early secondary referral

Effect of early secondary referral on outcome

There was no association between type of referral and hypotension and hypoxia at arrival at the SNC (unadjusted OR 0.53 with direct admission as reference, 95% CI 0.27–1.02 for hypoxia and OR 0.65 with direct admission as reference, 95% CI 0.36–1.19 for hypotension, Table 2). After adjustment, there were similar results (OR 0.57 with direct admission as reference, 95% CI 0.28–1.15 for hypoxia and OR 0.72 with direct admission as reference, 95% CI 0.38–1.38 for hypotension). Arriving by early secondary referral as moderate/severe TBI patient was not associated with 6 month GOSE (unadjusted OR 1.13 with direct admission as reference, 95% CI 0.82–1.55). After adjusting for confounders, arriving by early secondary referral as moderate/severe TBI patient was not associated with 6 month GOSE (multivariable adjustment, OR 1.07 with direct admission as reference, 95% CI 0.78–1.46, Table 3) and there was no association between early secondary referral and survival at discharge (OR 1.05 with direct admission as reference, 95% CI 0.58–1.90). Subgroup analysis of patients with a mass lesion or acute subdural hematoma and patients needing emergency intracranial surgical intervention showed similar magnitude and direction of the effects (Table 3). Complete case analysis showed similar results (Additional file 1: Table S3, Table S4).

Table 2 Effect of early secondary referral on hypotension and hypoxia at arrival at the Emergency Department of the Specialized Neurotrauma Center
Table 3 Effect of early secondary referral on GOSE and survival at discharge

Sensitivity analysis in the registry

A total of 2150 moderate/severe TBI patients were included in the registry of which 25% arrived by secondary transfer, the characteristics of both groups were similar to patients in the core study (Additional file 1: Table S1). Secondarily referred patients had craniotomy for hematoma more often as emergency intervention [171 (10.5%) of directly admitted and 164 (31.4%) of secondarily referred patients]. Also, the CT scans of secondarily referred patients more frequently showed midline shift (54.5% for secondarily referred vs. 37.5% for directly admitted). There was no association between arriving by early secondary referral and survival at discharge after adjustment for confounders (OR 1.21 95% CI 0.84–1.73, Additional file 1: Table S2).


This study showed that variation in the proportion of moderate and severe TBI patients who have been secondarily referred to European specialist centres varied significantly by country after adjusting for case-mix factors. The secondarily referred TBI patients received less prehospital interventions. However, they had more serious abnormalities at CT scanning. Secondarily referred TBI patients were not associated with fewer secondary insults (hypoxia and hypotension at ED arrival). We found no association between early secondary referral and clinical long term outcomes. These findings were confirmed in the registry database, including a larger and more heterogenous population.

The European variation in the proportion of early secondary referrals to specialist centres is large, and only partly confirmed in previous literature. The likelihood of arriving by early secondary referral was lowest in the Netherlands and Italy. A previous Italian study showed that 58% of the TBI patients presenting at SNCs in the whole country were referred from another peripheral hospital [26]. However, Italian centers that contributed to CENTER-TBI were mainly situated in Northern Italy. Fifteen years ago, an English study found that one third of the severe head injury patients were treated in non-neurotrauma centers which was associated with higher mortality [27]. A study from Greece found that around half of the TBI patients in specialist centres were secondarily referred, higher than our findings. Early secondary referral increased the travel time to a neurosurgical center by 3.5 h [28]. The percentage of early secondary referrals seems to be decreasing when comparing our sample of moderate/severe TBI patients to older European studies. The percentage of secondarily referred patients was highest in Scandinavian countries, Austria and the UK. This is in line with their geography, less densely populated areas with long distances and the consequent need to stabilise their patients at closer non-specialised acute hospitals in order to avoid secondary insults.

Earlier research suggested that arriving by early secondary referral is associated with worse outcomes in severe TBI patients [8, 27, 29, 30]. One of the most important explanations for worse outcomes being the time delay which could result in secondary brain damage due to hypotension and hypoxia [31]. Also, care in centres that practice high-volume protocol-driven therapy, like ICP monitoring, is associated with better outcomes especially when neurocritical interventions are necessary [32, 33]. However, we could not find an effect of early secondary referral on long term outcomes. A meta-analysis including eleven studies found comparable results [12]. This is in line with previous research, suggesting that time interval to surgery was not associated with outcomes in patients with acute subdural hematomas requiring surgery [34]. Since subdural hematomas were the most prevalent CT abnormality in early secondary referred patients, these data suggest that these patients can safely be stabilised in non-specialised centers.

Our study shows that the impact of time to emergency surgery on outcomes becomes less critical when secondary insults (hypoxia and hypotension) are avoided. Hypoxia and hypotension are although less frequently observed over time in TBI patients still strongly associated with worse long term outcomes [35, 36]. We found no differences in secondarily referred TBI patients arriving with hypoxia or hypotension compared to directly admitted TBI patients at the Specialised Neurotrauma Centre. This is not in line with previous research which shows that interventions to treat life-threatening events may significantly decrease mortality [37]. We do see a non-significant association between arriving by secondary referral and less hypoxia or hypotension. We believe that shortened on-scene time and prompt transport to a non-specialist acute care facility where patients can be stabilized is associated with less hypoxia and hypotension when arriving at the specialized neurotrauma center. This is also in line with the trial of Bernard which shows that prompt intubation is associated with improved functional outcome in severe TBI patients [9]. When intubation is not possible in the prehospital field, it is important to transport the patient to the nearest acute care facility as soon as possible [35]. The reason for not finding a significant association might be the study power needed to show this association.

This study has several strengths. CENTER-TBI is a multicenter study in 22 European countries, which increases external validity. External validity is further increased because we were able to validate our findings for the effect of early secondary referral on outcome in the CENTER registry. We could rigorously adjust for potential case-mix differences due to the broad data collection of CENTER-TBI, and assess both survival and long term functional outcome.

However, our study also has several limitations. The biggest limitation of our study is the fact that we miss information about patients who died at the first hospital. This could introduce a selection bias where patients secondary referred to SNCs are the survivors of the first hospital they were admitted to. First, we could only include patients that were referred to a neurosurgical study center within 24 h after injury. Some moderate/severe TBI patients who may have benefited from specialised care might not have been transferred, or might have been transferred after 24 h. Late secondary transfers are associated with worse outcomes [38]. Second, inevitably our large multicentre prospective observational study meant data was missing for some variables and confounding bias could not be excluded. For example, time to first hospital was missing in 50% of the cases. This was addressed by using multiple imputation, a method proven to give valid estimates under the missing at random assumption [39]. We used random effects multivariable models to adjust for potential confounders and further adjust for potential between-center differences in study population. However, we cannot exclude residual confounding bias. Also, we adjusted for many factor which could also introduce over-adjustment. Potential confounding factors were selected on clinical reasoning and the IMPACT model. Third, the between-country and between-center differences could not be explained by the captured policy and care characteristics [18]. Fourth, since CENTER-TBI is a large multicentre prospective cohort study measurement errors were inevitable. We dealt with this by checking the dataset on impossible values (for example a heart rate of 999), and these values were checked in the patient records. When no mistake could be found, values were made missing. Fifth, regression dilution bias due to measurement error or random noise is possible. Last, geographical differences like the distance from scene to the specialised center, or the number of specialised neurosurgical centers per km2 were not measured at a patient level.

The debate about whether or not to transport TBI patients directly to specialist neurotrauma centers—past closer non specialist hospitals—has not yet been concluded. We were not able to find an association between early secondary referral and outcome. Intuitively, arriving by early secondary referral with extended time from injury to definitive treatment remains undesirable. One could look for alternatives. An English study shows for example that observation in a non-specialised hospital with neurosurgical consult by e-health and repeated CT scanning was not associated with worse outcomes for TBI patients [40]. However, this could lead to extra transfers between hospitals and increasing health care costs.

Once moderate/severe TBI patients are stabilised (on-scene or at the first hospital), it is possible that there is no effect of the time delay on outcome anymore. Patients arriving by early secondary referral receive less interventions on-scene, but do have more serious CT brain scan abnormalities, highlighting the limitations of current prehospital triage tools. Future research in this area also needs to include patients with TBI admitted to non-specialist hospitals. This will enable assessment of subgroups of TBI patients with benefit from direct transport to SNCs. Consequently, this would also allow further evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of direct transport to SNCs which was recently shown to be equivocal [41].


Across Europe, substantial practice variation exists in the proportion of secondarily referred moderate/severe TBI patients within specialised neurotrauma centers. Patients who are secondarily referred present less often with secondary insults, although they have more serious CT abnormalities. Future research should focus upon which on scene characteristics identify TBI patients that benefit from direct transportation to distant specialist neurotrauma centers in order to improve guidelines and outcomes for patients with TBI.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of CENTER-TBI.



Confidence interval


Computed tomography


Emergency medical services


Glasgow Coma Score


Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended


Interquartile range


Non specialized acute hospital


Odds ratio


Specialized neurotrauma center


Traumatic brain injury


  1. 1.

    Maas AIR, Menon DK, Adelson PD, Andelic N, Bell MJ, Belli A, et al. Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(12):987–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Roozenbeek B, Maas AIR, Menon DK. Changing patterns in the epidemiology of traumatic brain injury. Nat Rev Neurol. 2013;9(4):231–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Collaborators GBDN. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(5):459–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    McConnell KJ, Newgard CD, Mullins RJ, Arthur M, Hedges JR. Mortality benefit of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers for head-injured patients. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(2):435–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Mendeloff JM, Cayten CG. Trauma systems and public policy. Annu Rev Public Health. 1991;12:401–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    DuBose JJ, Browder T, Inaba K, Teixeira PG, Chan LS, Demetriades D. Effect of trauma center designation on outcome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Arch Surg. 2008;143(12):1213–7 (discussion 7).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mirski MA, Chang CW, Cowan R. Impact of a neuroscience intensive care unit on neurosurgical patient outcomes and cost of care: evidence-based support for an intensivist-directed specialty ICU model of care. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2001;13(2):83–92.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hartl R, Gerber LM, Iacono L, Ni QH, Lyons K, Ghajar J. Direct transport within an organized state trauma system reduces mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma-Injury Infect Crit Care. 2006;60(6):1250–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bernard SA, Nguyen V, Cameron P, Masci K, Fitzgerald M, Cooper DJ, et al. Prehospital rapid sequence intubation improves functional outcome for patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252(6):959–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cnossen MC, van der Brande R, Lingsma HF, Polinder S, Lecky F, Maas AIR. Prehospital Trauma Care among 68 European Neurotrauma Centers: Results of the CENTER-TBI Provider Profiling Questionnaires. J Neurotrauma. 2018;36(1):176–81.

  11. 11.

    Helling TS, Davit F, Edwards K. First Echelon Hospital Care before Trauma Center transfer in a rural trauma system: does it affect outcome? J Trauma-Injury Infect Crit Care. 2010;69(6):1362–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Pickering A, Cooper K, Harnan S, Sutton A, Mason S, Nicholl J. Impact of prehospital transfer strategies in major trauma and head injury: systematic review, meta-analysis, and recommendations for study design. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;78(1):164–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lecky FE, Russell W, McClelland G, Pennington E, Fuller G, Goodacre S, et al. Bypassing nearest hospital for more distant neuroscience care in head-injured adults with suspected traumatic brain injury: findings of the head injury transportation straight to neurosurgery (HITS-NS) pilot cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e016355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hoogmartens O, Heselmans A, Van de Velde S, Castren M, Sjolin H, Sabbe M, et al. Evidence-based prehospital management of severe traumatic brain injury: a comparative analysis of current clinical practice guidelines. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18(2):265–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Badjatia N, Carney N, Crocco TJ, Fallat ME, Hennes HM, Jagoda AS, et al. Guidelines for prehospital management of traumatic brain injury 2nd edition. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008;12(Suppl 1):1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gabriel EJ, Ghajar J, Jagoda A, Pons PT, Scalea T, Walters BC, et al. Guidelines for prehospital management of traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2002;19(1):111–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Maas AIR, Menon DK, Steyerberg EW, Citerio G, Lecky F, Manley GT, et al. Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): a prospective longitudinal observational study. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(1):67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Cnossen MC, Polinder S, Lingsma HF, Maas AIR, Menon D, Steyerberg EW, et al. Variation in structure and process of care in traumatic brain injury: provider profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers participating in the CENTER-TBI Study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8):e0161367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2(7872):81–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335(7624):806–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Steyerberg EW, Wiegers E, Sewalt C, Buki A, Citerio G, De Keyser V, et al. Case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in CENTER-TBI: a European prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(10):923–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kunzmann K, Wernisch L, Richardson S, Steyerberg E, Lingsma H, A E. Imputation of ordinal outcomes: a comparison of approaches in traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2019;38(4):455–63.

  23. 23.

    Dijkland SA, Foks KA, Polinder S, Dippel DWJ, Maas AIR, Lingsma HF, et al. Prognosis in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of contemporary models and validation studies. J Neurotrauma. 2019;37(1):1–13.

  24. 24.

    Gravesteijn BY, Sewalt CA, Venema E, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW. Missing data in prediction research: a five-step approach for multiple imputation, illustrated in the CENTER-TBI Study. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38(13):1842–57.

  25. 25.

    Merlo J, Chaix B, Yang M, Lynch J, Rastam L. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: linking the statistical concept of clustering to the idea of contextual phenomenon. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(6):443–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Citerio G, Stocchetti N, Cormio M, Beretta L, Galli D, Pesenti A. Application of guidelines for severe head trauma: data from an Italian database. Eur J Emerg Med. 2003;10(1):68–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Patel HC, Bouamra O, Woodford M, King AT, Yates DW, Lecky FE, et al. Trends in head injury outcome from 1989 to 2003 and the effect of neurosurgical care: an observational study. Lancet. 2005;366(9496):1538–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Stranjalis G, Bouras T, Korfias S, Andrianakis I, Pitaridis M, Tsamandouraki K, et al. Outcome in 1,000 head injury hospital admissions: the Athens head trauma registry. J Trauma. 2008;65(4):789–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Joosse P, Saltzherr TP, van Lieshout WA, van Exter P, Ponsen KJ, Vandertop WP, et al. Impact of secondary transfer on patients with severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(2):487–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Tepas JJ 3rd, Pracht EE, Orban BL, Flint LM. High-volume trauma centers have better outcomes treating traumatic brain injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74(1):143–7 (discussion 7–8).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Haselsberger K, Pucher R, Auer LM. Prognosis after acute subdural or epidural haemorrhage. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1988;90(3–4):111–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Fuller G, Bouamra O, Woodford M, Jenks T, Patel H, Coats TJ, et al. The effect of specialist neurosciences care on outcome in adult severe head injury: a cohort study. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2011;23(3):198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Elf K, Nilsson P, Enblad P. Outcome after traumatic brain injury improved by an organized secondary insult program and standardized neurointensive care. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(9):2129–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Walcott BP, Khanna A, Kwon CS, Phillips HW, Nahed BV, Coumans JV. Time interval to surgery and outcomes following the surgical treatment of acute traumatic subdural hematoma. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(12):2107–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Gravesteijn BY, Sewalt CA, Stocchetti N, Citerio G, Ercole A, Lingsma HF, et al. Prehospital management of traumatic brain injury across Europe: a CENTER-TBI study. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020. 1–15.

  36. 36.

    Spaite DW, Hu C, Bobrow BJ, Chikani V, Sherrill D, Barnhart B, et al. Mortality and prehospital blood pressure in patients with major traumatic brain injury: implications for the hypotension threshold. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(4):360–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Gomes E, Araujo R, Carneiro A, Dias C, Costa-Pereira A, Lecky FE. The importance of pre-trauma centre treatment of life-threatening events on the mortality of patients transferred with severe trauma. Resuscitation. 2010;81(4):440–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Harrison DA, Prabhu G, Grieve R, Harvey SE, Sadique MZ, Gomes M, et al. Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN)-prospective validation of risk prediction models for adult patients with acute traumatic brain injury to use to evaluate the optimum location and comparative costs of neurocritical care: a cohort study. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(23):vii–viii, 1–350.

  39. 39.

    Griffith DA, Bennett RJ, Haining RP. Statistical analysis of spatial data in the presence of missing observations: a methodological guide and an application to urban census data. Environ Plan A. 1989;21(11):1, 511–23.

  40. 40.

    Fabbri A, Servadei F, Marchesini G, Stein SC, Vandelli A. Observational approach to subjects with mild-to-moderate head injury and initial non-neurosurgical lesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(10):1180–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Lecky F, Russell W, Fuller G, McClelland G, Pennington E, Goodacre S, et al. The Head Injury Transportation Straight to Neurosurgery (HITS-NS) randomised trial: a feasibility study. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(1):1–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The CENTER-TBI participants and investigators: 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, Giorgio Chevallard30, Arturo Chieregato30, Giuseppe Citerio31, 32, Maryse Cnossen33, Mark Coburn34, Jonathan Coles35, D. Jamie Cooper36, Marta Correia37, Amra Čović 38, Nicola Curry39, Endre Czeiter24, Marek Czosnyka26, Claire Dahyot-Fizelier40, Helen Dawes41, Véronique De Keyser42, Vincent Degos16, Francesco Della Corte43, Hugo den Boogert10, Bart Depreitere44, Đula Đilvesi 45, Abhishek Dixit46, Emma Donoghue22, Jens Dreier47, Guy-Loup Dulière48, Ari Ercole46, Patrick Esser41, Erzsébet Ezer49, Martin Fabricius50, Valery L. Feigin51, Kelly Foks52, Shirin Frisvold53, Alex Furmanov54, Pablo Gagliardo55, Damien Galanaud16, Dashiell Gantner28, Guoyi Gao56, Pradeep George57, Alexandre Ghuysen58, Lelde Giga59, Ben Glocker60, Jagoš Golubovic45, Pedro A. Gomez 61, Johannes Gratz62, Benjamin Gravesteijn33, Francesca Grossi43, Russell L. Gruen63, Deepak Gupta64, Juanita A. Haagsma33, Iain Haitsma65, Raimund Helbok13, Eirik Helseth66, Lindsay Horton 67, Jilske Huijben33, Peter J. Hutchinson68, Bram Jacobs69, Stefan Jankowski70, Mike Jarrett21, Ji-yao Jiang56, Kelly Jones51, Mladen Karan47, Angelos G. Kolias68, Erwin Kompanje71, Daniel Kondziella50, Evgenios Koraropoulos46, Lars-Owe Koskinen72, Noémi Kovács73, Alfonso Lagares61, Linda Lanyon57, Steven Laureys74, Fiona Lecky75, Rolf Lefering76, Valerie Legrand77, Aurelie Lejeune78, Leon Levi79, Roger Lightfoot80, Hester Lingsma33, Andrew I.R. Maas42, Ana M. Castaño-León61, Marc Maegele81, Marek Majdan20, Alex Manara82, Geoffrey Manley83, Costanza Martino84, Hugues Maréchal48, Julia Mattern85, Catherine McMahon86, Béla Melegh87, David Menon46, Tomas Menovsky42, Davide Mulazzi27, Visakh Muraleedharan57, Lynnette Murray28, Nandesh Nair42, Ancuta Negru88, David Nelson1, Virginia Newcombe46, Daan Nieboer33, Quentin Noirhomme74, József Nyirádi2, Otesile Olubukola75, Matej Oresic89, Fabrizio Ortolano27, Aarno Palotie90, 91, 92, Paul M. Parizel93, Jean-François Payen94, Natascha Perera12, Vincent Perlbarg16, Paolo Persona95, Wilco Peul96, Anna Piippo-Karjalainen97, Matti Pirinen90, Horia Ples88, Suzanne Polinder33, Inigo Pomposo29, Jussi P. Posti 98, Louis Puybasset99, Andreea Radoi 100, Arminas Ragauskas101, Rahul Raj97, Malinka Rambadagalla102, Ruben Real38, Jonathan Rhodes103, Sylvia Richardson104, Sophie Richter46, Samuli Ripatti90, Saulius Rocka101, Cecilie Roe105, Olav Roise106,140, Jonathan Rosand107, Jeffrey V. Rosenfeld108, Christina Rosenlund109, Guy Rosenthal54, Rolf Rossaint34, Sandra Rossi95, Daniel Rueckert60, Martin Rusnák110, Juan Sahuquillo100, Oliver Sakowitz85, 111, Renan Sanchez-Porras111, Janos Sandor112, Nadine Schäfer76, Silke Schmidt113, Herbert Schoechl114, Guus Schoonman115, Rico Frederik Schou116, Elisabeth Schwendenwein6, Charlie Sewalt33, Toril Skandsen117, 118, Peter Smielewski26, Abayomi Sorinola119, Emmanuel Stamatakis46, Simon Stanworth39, Ana Kowark34, Robert Stevens120, William Stewart121, Ewout W. Steyerberg33, 122, Nino Stocchetti123, Nina Sundström124, Anneliese Synnot22, 125, Riikka Takala126, Viktória Tamás119, Tomas Tamosuitis127, Mark Steven Taylor20, Braden Te Ao51, Olli Tenovuo98, Alice Theadom51, Matt Thomas82, Dick Tibboel128, Marjolein Timmers71, Christos Tolias129, Tony Trapani28, Cristina Maria Tudora88, Peter Vajkoczy 130, Shirley Vallance28, Egils Valeinis59, Zoltán Vámos49, Gregory Van der Steen42, Joukje van der Naalt69, Jeroen T.J.M. van Dijck 96, Thomas A. van Essen96, Wim Van Hecke131, Caroline van Heugten132, Dominique Van Praag133, Thijs Vande Vyvere131, Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse16, 74, Roel P. J. van Wijk97, Alessia Vargiolu32, Emmanuel Vega79, Kimberley Velt33, Jan Verheyden131, Paul M. Vespa134, Anne Vik117, 135, Rimantas Vilcinis127, Victor Volovici65, Nicole von Steinbüchel38, Daphne Voormolen33, Petar Vulekovic45, Kevin K.W. Wang136, Eveline Wiegers33, Guy Williams46, Lindsay Wilson67, Stefan Winzeck46, Stefan Wolf137, Zhihui Yang136, Peter Ylén138, Alexander Younsi85, Frederik A. Zeiler46,139, Veronika Zelinkova20, Agate Ziverte59, 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 Surgery and 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, ASST di Monza, Monza, Italy. 33Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 34Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, 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. 41Movement Science Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK. 42Department of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. 43Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care, Maggiore Della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy. 44Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 45Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical centre of Vojvodina, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia. 46Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK. 47Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 48Intensive Care Unit, CHR Citadelle, Liège, Belgium. 49Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 50Departments of Neurology, Clinical Neurophysiology and Neuroanesthesiology, Region Hovedstaden Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 51National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, Faculty of Health and Environmental Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 52Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 53Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive care, University Hospital Northern Norway, Tromso, Norway. 54Department of Neurosurgery, Hadassah-hebrew University Medical center, Jerusalem, Israel. 55Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Neurorrehabilitación (FIVAN), Valencia, Spain. 56Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Renji hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University/school of medicine, Shanghai, China. 57Karolinska Institutet, INCF International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility, Stockholm, Sweden. 58Emergency Department, CHU, Liège, Belgium. 59Neurosurgery clinic, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia. 60Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK. 61Department of Neurosurgery, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. 62Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 63College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. 64Department of Neurosurgery, Neurosciences Centre & JPN Apex trauma centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-110029, India. 65Department of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 66Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 67Division of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. 68Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke’s Hospital & University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 69Department of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 70Neurointensive Care , Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. 71Department of Intensive Care and Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 72Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurosurgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 73Hungarian Brain Research Program—Grant No. KTIA_13_NAP-A-II/8, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 74Cyclotron Research Center , University of Liège, Liège, Belgium. 75Emergency Medicine Research in Sheffield, Health Services Research Section, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 76Institute of Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany. 77VP Global Project Management CNS, ICON, Paris, France. 78Department of Anesthesiology-Intensive Care, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. 79Department of Neurosurgery, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 80Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, University Hospitals Southhampton NHS Trust, Southhampton, UK. 81Cologne-Merheim Medical Center (CMMC), Department of Traumatology, Orthopedic Surgery and Sportmedicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany. 82Intensive Care Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, Bristol, UK. 83Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 84Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care, M. Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy. 85Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 86Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. 87Department of Medical Genetics, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary . 88Department of Neurosurgery, Emergency County Hospital Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania. 89School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 90Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 91Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Department of Medicine; Psychiatric & Neurodevelopmental Genetics Unit, Department of Psychiatry; Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 92Program in Medical and Population Genetics; The Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA. 93Department of Radiology, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. 94Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, University Hospital of Grenoble, Grenoble, France. 95Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliera Università di Padova, Padova, Italy. 96Dept. of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands and Dept. of Neurosurgery, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, The Netherlands. 97Department of Neurosurgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital. 98Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Department of Neurosurgery and Turku Brain Injury Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 99Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pitié -Salpêtrière Teaching Hospital, Assistance Publique, Hôpitaux de Paris and University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France. 100Neurotraumatology and Neurosurgery Research Unit (UNINN), Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain. 101Department of Neurosurgery, Kaunas University of technology and Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. 102Department of Neurosurgery, Rezekne Hospital, Latvia. 103Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine NHS Lothian & University of Edinburg, Edinburgh, UK. 104Director, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK. 105Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital/University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 106Division of Orthopedics, Oslo University Hospital . 107Broad Institute, Cambridge MA Harvard Medical School, Boston MA, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA, USA. 108National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 109Department of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 110International Neurotrauma Research Organisation, Vienna, Austria. 111Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, Germany. 112Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. 113Department Health and Prevention, University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 114Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, AUVA Trauma Hospital, Salzburg, Austria. 115Department of Neurology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands. 116Department of Neuroanesthesia and Neurointensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 117Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. 118Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, St.Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 119Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary . 120Division of Neuroscience Critical Care, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA. 121Department of Neuropathology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 122Dept. of Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands . 123Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Milan University, and Neuroscience ICU, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy. 124Department of Radiation Sciences, Biomedical Engineering, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 125Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. 126Perioperative Services, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Management, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 127Department of Neurosurgery, Kaunas University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 128Intensive Care and Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 129Department of Neurosurgery, Kings college London, London, UK. 130Neurologie, Neurochirurgie und Psychiatrie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 131icoMetrix NV, Leuven, Belgium. 132Movement Science Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK. 133Psychology Department, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. 134Director of Neurocritical Care, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. 135Department of Neurosurgery, St.Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 136Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 137Department of Neurosurgery, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 138VTT Technical Research Centre, Tampere, Finland. 139Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 140Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo.


CENTER-TBI was supported by the European Union 7th Framework program (EC Grant 602150). Additional funding was obtained from the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany), from OneMind (USA) and from Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA).

Author information





CAS, BYG, EV and HL analyzed and interpreted the patient data. FL, AM, NS, DM and HL were major contributors in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlie Aletta Sewalt.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained for each recruiting site. Consent was obtained for all patients enrolled in the Core study. The list of sites, Ethical Committees, approval numbers and approval dates can be found on the website:

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Table S1 and S2.

Additional file 2.

Figure S1.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sewalt, C.A., Gravesteijn, B.Y., Menon, D. et al. Primary versus early secondary referral to a specialized neurotrauma center in patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury: a CENTER TBI study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 29, 113 (2021).

Download citation


  • Traumatic brain injury
  • Referral
  • Transfer
  • Trauma system