To evaluate the effectiveness of early administration of excitatory amino acid (EAA) inhibitors on long-term neurological outcomes in adults with acute moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2026.

RCTs comparing EAA inhibitors with placebo, standard care or any other interventions were included. Trials enrolled adult patients (≥18 years) with moderate to severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤12) receiving the intervention within the acute phase of care (first week).

Pairs of reviewers independently screened trials, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias (RoB) with the Cochrane RoB tool 2 and graded the certainty of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Random effects models were used for all effect measures and trial sequential analyses (TSA) were performed for each outcome.

The primary outcome was long-term neurological function at 6 months (or the nearest earlier time point), assessed with the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) or extended version (GOS-E), using the classical definitions of an unfavourable outcome (GOS 1–3 or GOS-E 1–4).

28 trials enrolling 4238 patients were included. Early administration of EAA inhibitors was not associated with reduced unfavourable neurological outcomes (relative risk 0.93 (95% CI (0.84 to 1.03); I²=40%; 15 trials, n=3613, moderate certainty). No statistically significant difference was observed based on EAA inhibitor type, timing or duration of administration, RoB or TBI severity. Mortality, intensive care unit lengths of stay and mean intracranial pressure were not statistically different between groups, but hospital length of stay was reduced in the EAA inhibitors group. The early use of EAA inhibitors was not associated with adverse events (low certainty). TSA showed insufficient power for the primary outcome.

In adults with moderate to severe TBI, the early administration of EAA inhibitors was not associated with a reduction of unfavourable neurological outcomes. Further high-quality and adequately powered RCTs are required to clarify their role in TBI management.

CRD42025635527.

To evaluate the effects of liberal transfusion strategy (trigger haemoglobin ≤90–100 g/L) compared with a restrictive strategy (trigger haemoglobin ≤70–80 g/L) on long-term neurological functional outcome in anaemic adult patients with acute acquired brain injury (ABI).

Systematic review and study-level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane from inception to 6 February 2025.

RCTs enrolling patients with acute ABI and anaemia (haemoglobin ≤100 g/L), comparing a liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategy.

Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of RCTs and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was an unfavourable neurological functional outcome, using the Glasgow Outcome or modified Rankin scales.

Five trials enrolling 2364 patients with acute ABI and anaemia were included in the primary analysis. Liberal transfusion reduces the risk of unfavourable neurological outcome (risk ratio (RR)=0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95, high certainty). Liberal transfusion may reduce severe disability (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02, moderate certainty), and increase good recovery compared with restrictive transfusion (RR=1.29, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76, low certainty). We found no difference in the risk of most adverse events, including death. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I²=0%–36%) for neurological outcomes.

In adults with acute ABI and anaemia, liberal transfusion reduces the risk of unfavourable outcome (high certainty) and possibly improves the chances of good recovery (low certainty) when compared with restrictive transfusion.

CRD42025628732.

Pain is one of the most bothersome symptoms that affects patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but is often inadequately treated. Inadequate pain control in the inpatient setting not only impacts patients’ experience but increases opioid use and hospital length of stay. Opioids are often considered first-line treatment for severe pain but are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in IBD. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are a non-opioid analgesic option, but concerns regarding their contribution to IBD flares have limited their use. Brain-gut behavioural therapies (BGBT), such as cognitive behavioural therapy, meditation and gut-directed hypnotherapy, are effective for pain management and have a role in the treatment of IBD symptoms. However, the use of BGBT in IBD is challenging, given limited access to behavioural health specialists, especially in the inpatient setting. Virtual reality (VR)-directed BGBT programmes can bridge this gap and enhance pain treatment for inpatients with IBD. Therefore, in this study, we aim to establish feasibility and acceptability for a VR-directed BGBT inpatient programme for patients with IBD.

We will recruit 40 patients with IBD who are hospitalised at Michigan Medicine and who endorse IBD-related pain. We will assess patient-reported outcomes (pain rating, IBD-specific symptoms, perceived stress, mood) before and after treatment, cumulative inpatient analgesic requirements and hospital length of stay. Our primary objective will be to establish intervention feasibility defined by the frequency and percentage of enrolled participants that use the VR-directed BGBT inpatient intervention in any capacity. Our secondary objective will be to evaluate intervention acceptability by conducting semistructured interviews with study participants. We will also explore the preliminary effectiveness of VR-directed BGBT on patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilisation as compared with historic controls.

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Michigan Medical School on 10 October 2023 (HUM00240999). All human subjects will be required to sign an informed consent document prior to study participation. Study findings will be reported through peer-reviewed publication.

NCT06188793.