Serum fibrinogen level and fibrinogen administration in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Introduction

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a leading cause of disability and death, with an incidence of approximately 69 million people per year globally[1] and a prevalence of approximately 75 million [1,2]. The estimated global economic cost of TBI is $400 billion [3]. Approximately half of TBI patients seen in hospitals fail to regain pre-TBI baseline health six months after the injury [2]. Sequelae of TBI range from transient loss of consciousness and confusion to seizures, persistent cognitive decline, coma, and death [4–6].

Coagulopathy in TBI influences the development of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), leading to poor patient outcomes, including a higher incidence of organ failure, poor neurological function recovery, significant disability, and death [7–9]. Fibrinogen plays a vital role in the clotting cascade of stabilising blood clots. A low fibrinogen level is a marker of coagulopathy. Serum fibrinogen level has been shown to decrease significantly hours after trauma and reaches severely low levels in uncontrolled post-traumatic bleed[10].

Furthermore, adverse associations of low fibrinogen levels in patients with TBI have been shown, such as loss of independence due to severe disability, vegetative state, and death [9,11,12]. It has been postulated that low fibrinogen levels can be used to prognosticate patients with TBI, and therapeutic administration of fibrinogen could improve coagulopathy in these patients, improving their outcomes.

This systematic review aims first to assess the evidence on the prognostic value of fibrinogen in TBI, which would benefit risk-benefit shared decision-making involving healthcare providers, patients, and their families. Secondly, the authors aim to evaluate the evidence on the benefits, if any, of fibrinogen administration in patients with TBI, which, if demonstrated, would transform and broaden treatment options in this group of patients.

Materials and Methods

Data Collection

Eligibility Criteria

Data Extraction

Zotero (Corporation for Digital Scholarship, Virginia, USA) will be used to exclude literature search duplicates. Using Rayyan (Rayyan, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA), titles/abstracts will be independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion. Eligible full-text articles will be screened further, and subsequent data extracted using the same data extraction proforma on Google Sheets (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, USA). A third reviewer will adjudicate any conflicts in title/abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. The process will be illustrated using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [13] flow diagram.

Data Analysis

The direction of effect for the association between serum fibrinogen level or fibrinogen administration and patient outcomes will be categorised as significantly positive, significantly negative, or not statistically significant from articles where the event ratio is reported. Where the area under the curve (AUC) is reported, the effect direction will be grouped as failed (AUC = 0.5 to 0.6), poor (AUC = 0.6 to 0.7), acceptable (AUC = 0.7 to 0.8), good (AUC = 0.8 to 0.9) and excellent (AUC > 0.9) [14]. Dose and response analyses will be done [15], where possible, to evaluate the most effective dose of fibrinogen administration. Side effect frequency and severity will be reported.

Where possible, if ≥5 appropriate articles, meta-analysis will be performed using Review Manager (RevMan) (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration) as follows: each outcome measure will have a pooled extracted odds ratio (OR)/hazard ratio (HR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The generic inverse-variance method will be used to assess the association between fibrinogen level/fibrinogen administration and the dichotomous outcome measure. The Cochrane Q-statistic and I² statistic tests will be used to assess heterogeneity among included studies. Study heterogeneity will be addressed using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses will be carried out for studies that explicitly state that their study participants had isolated head injuries. Subgroup analyses will be conducted through sensitivity analysis, where the primary analysis is repeated after excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The risk of bias (RoB) in the eligible full-text articles will be assessed by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer adjudicating any discrepancies.

The RoB in studies investigating the prognostic utility of serum fibrinogen level will be assessed using the Quality in prognosis studies (QUIPs) tool [16]. The categories of high, moderate, and low risk of bias will used based on the criteria developed by Grooten et al [16]: green (low risk of bias) for studies where all six QUIPs domains are assessed as low risk of bias (RoB) or not more than one domain is assessed as moderate risk of bias; red (high RoB) for studies where ≥ 1 is assessed as high RoB, or ≥ 3 domains are assessed as moderate RoB; yellow (moderate RoB) for all other articles in between. The same criteria will be used to assess the risk of bias rating for individual domains.

For the studies investigating the efficacy of fibrinogen administration, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used for Randomised control trials (RCTs) [17], and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies to determine the RoB [18]. The RoB of RCTs will be rated as high, low, or unclear. A green circle with a ‘+’ symbol within will be used for low RoB, a red circle with a ‘-’ symbol within for high RoB, and a yellow circle with a ‘?’ symbol within for unclear RoB. For the ROBINS-I tool the categories used will be low risk, moderate risk, serious risk, and critical risk of bias [18].

Publication bias will be assessed through funnel plots and Egger’s regression test, contingent on having an adequate number of studies. The GRADE framework will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence of the synthesis findings for each outcome measure in cases of fibrinogen administration and prognostication [19,20]. Two independent reviewers will conduct the GRADE assessments, with a third reviewer adjudicating any discrepancies.

If meta-analysis is not possible, the Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic review reporting guidelines will be used to report narrative and qualitative data [21].

Study Limitations

Due to the nature of this systematic review’s exclusion criteria, potentially valuable information in these excluded studies may be missed. Potentially valuable information from the data in studies that fail to report the events ratio or area under curve (AUC) whilst assessing the prognostic value of fibrinogen will also be missed as the data in these studies will not be included in our data analysis.

Conclusions

Given the prevalence of TBI and the worldwide economic burden, optimising the care of TBI patients is pertinent. If fibrinogen has a prognostic value, it would help healthcare teams practise realistic medicine in accordingly adjusting the goals of care delivered to these patients based on their prognosis. If administering fibrinogen does indeed improve patient outcomes, then this would be an important treatment option for healthcare teams to consider incorporating for TBI patients, especially if fibrinogen administration is protective against haemorrhagic transformation of contusions for example.

Therefore, if we find that serum fibrinogen level has prognostic value and that administering fibrinogen improves outcome, this could be important in shared-decision making and in ensuring that patients have improved outcomes.

Declarations

Ethics and Study Dissemination

No ethical approval is required for this systematic review of already published data. The findings of this paper will be submitted for publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

Authors’ contributions

Joanne Igoli, Jeremiah Oluwatomi Itodo Daniel, and Temidayo Osunronbi contributed to the conception and design of the study. Joanne Igoli wrote the initial draft of the manuscript and is guarantor of the study. All authors contributed to subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.