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

Objective To compare the cost effectiveness of different programmes of routine antenatal ultrasound screening to detect four key fetal anomalies: serious cardiac anomalies, spina bifida, Down's syndrome and lethal anomalies, using existing evidence.Design Decision analysis was used based on the best data currently available, including expert opinion from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Working Party and secondary data from the literature, to predict the likely outcomes in terms of malformations detected by each screening programme. Setting Main outcome measure The number of cases with a 'target' malformation correctly detected antenatally.Results There was substantial overlap between the cost ranges of each screening programme demonstrating considerable uncertainty about the relative economic efficiency of alternative programmes for ultrasound screening. The cheapest, but not the most effective, screening programme consisted of one second trimester ultrasound scan. The cost per target anomaly detected (cost effectiveness) for this programme was in the range ;E5,000-~109,000, but in any 1000 women it will also fail to detect between 3.6 and 4.7 target anomalies. ConclusionsThe range of uncertainty in the costs did not allow selection of any one programme as a clear choice for NHS purchasers. The results suggested that the overall allocation of resources for routine ultrasound screening in the UK is not currently economically efficient, but that certain scenarios for ultrasound screening are potentially within the range of cost effectiveness reached by other, possibly competing, screening programmes. The model highlighted the weakness of available evidence and demonstrated the need for more information both about current practice and costs.Results applicable in clinics, hospitals or GP practices delivering antenatal screening.

No abstract

Our community consultation survey shows that the proposed trial is acceptable to the public. In addition, the results suggest high levels of acceptability of surrogate consent by next of kin or independent doctor amongst our community.