A concerted effort to tackle the global health problem posed by traumatic brain injury (TBI) is long overdue. TBI is a public health challenge of vast, but insufficiently recognised, proportions. Worldwide, more than 50 million people have a TBI each year, and it is estimated that about half the world's population will have one or more TBIs over their lifetime. TBI is the leading cause of mortality in young adults and a major cause of death and disability across all ages in all countries, with a disproportionate burden of disability and death occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). It has been estimated that TBI costs the global economy approximately $US400 billion annually. Deficiencies in prevention, care, and research urgently need to be addressed to reduce the huge burden and societal costs of TBI. This Commission highlights priorities and provides expert recommendations for all stakeholders—policy makers, funders, health-care professionals, researchers, and patient representatives—on clinical and research strategies to reduce this growing public health problem and improve the lives of people with TBI.Additional co-authors: Endre Czeiter, Marek Czosnyka, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, Jens P Dreier, Ann-Christine Duhaime, Ari Ercole, Thomas A van Essen, Valery L Feigin, Guoyi Gao, Joseph Giacino, Laura E Gonzalez-Lara, Russell L Gruen, Deepak Gupta, Jed A Hartings, Sean Hill, Ji-yao Jiang, Naomi Ketharanathan, Erwin J O Kompanje, Linda Lanyon, Steven Laureys, Fiona Lecky, Harvey Levin, Hester F Lingsma, Marc Maegele, Marek Majdan, Geoffrey Manley, Jill Marsteller, Luciana Mascia, Charles McFadyen, Stefania Mondello, Virginia Newcombe, Aarno Palotie, Paul M Parizel, Wilco Peul, James Piercy, Suzanne Polinder, Louis Puybasset, Todd E Rasmussen, Rolf Rossaint, Peter Smielewski, Jeannette Söderberg, Simon J Stanworth, Murray B Stein, Nicole von Steinbüchel, William Stewart, Ewout W Steyerberg, Nino Stocchetti, Anneliese Synnot, Braden Te Ao, Olli Tenovuo, Alice Theadom, Dick Tibboel, Walter Videtta, Kevin K W Wang, W Huw Williams, Kristine Yaffe for the InTBIR Participants and Investigator

There is limited evidence for accuracy of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. When consistent with patient history, clinicians may use a combination of Spurling's, axial traction, and an Arm Squeeze test to increase the likelihood of a cervical radiculopathy, whereas a combined results of four negative neurodynamics tests and an Arm Squeeze test could be used to rule out the disorder.

Objective To assess whether interspinous process device implantation is more effective in the short term than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Design Randomized controlled trial.Setting Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) in the Netherlands.Participants 203 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group between October 2008 and September 2011; 159 participants with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized.Interventions 80 participants received an interspinous process device and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome at short term (eight weeks) and long term (one year) follow-up was the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score. Repeated measurements were made to compare outcomes over time.Results At eight weeks, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the interspinous process device group (63%, 95% confidence interval 51% to 73%) was not superior to that for standard bony decompression (72%, 60% to 81%). No differences in disability (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; P=0.44) or other outcomes were observed between groups during the first year. The repeat surgery rate in the interspinous implant group was substantially higher (n=21; 29%) than that in the conventional group (n=6; 8%) in the early post-surgical period (P<0.001).Conclusions This double blinded study could not confirm the hypothesized short term advantage of interspinous process device over conventional "simple" decompression and even showed a fairly high reoperation rate after interspinous process device implantation.Trial registration Dutch Trial Register NTR1307.

Purpose To compare the effectiveness of techniques of posterior decompression that limit the extent of bony decompression or to avoid removal of posterior midline structures of the lumbar spine versus conventional facetpreserving laminectomy for the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis. Methods A comprehensive electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MED-LINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the clinical trials registries ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was conducted for relevant literature up to June 2014. Results A total of four high-quality RCTs and six lowquality RCTs met the search criteria of this review. These studies included a total of 733 participants. Three different techniques that avoid removal of posterior midline structures are compared to conventional laminectomy; unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression, bilateral

Netherlands Trial Register NTR3156. [Oosterhuis T, Ostelo RW, van Dongen JM, Peul WC, de Boer MR, Bosmans JE, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL, Arts MP, van Tulder MW (2017) Early rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery is not effective or cost-effective compared to no referral: a randomised trial and economic evaluation. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 144-153].