GFAP and UCH-L1 for Ruling out Intracranial Lesions After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and...

Background: Patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have a small but clinically relevant risk of intracranial injury (ICI), requiring timely detection. Computed tomography (CT) remains the diagnostic gold standard but is costly and exposes patients to ionising radiation. Combining blood-based biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), with clinical decision rules may allow safe exclusion of ICI without CT, reducing unnecessary imaging, radiation exposure, and resource use. Methods: A systematic review of clinical and economic studies in patients with mTBI was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251051158). Searches were conducted in January 2025 and updated in May 2025 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy and economic value of the combination of GFAP and UCH-L1 compared with CT scanning to rule out ICI in both adults and children with mTBI. Where available, studies directly comparing GFAP and UCH-L1 with S100β were also analysed descriptively. The quality of the clinical evidence was assessed with QUADAS-2 and GRADE. Meta-analyses used a bivariate random-effects model, with heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses explored. Results: Overall, 21 studies were considered in our review. Moderate- to high-quality evidence indicates that GFAP and UCH-L1, when used together with clinical assessment, have very high sensitivity and can reliably rule out ICI in adults with mTBI presenting within 12 h to the emergency department. Evidence for paediatric populations shows promise but remains very limited. Specificity is low, particularly in older adults, which limits the ability to reduce CT use in this high-risk group. Research on age-adjusted cut-offs is ongoing and may help to reduce the proportion of false positive tests without compromising sensitivity. Few studies directly compared GFAP and UCH-L1 with S100β, with slightly higher to equivalent sensitivity for GFAP and UCH-L1. Economic evaluations suggest possible cost savings and reduced CT utilisation, but these analyses rely on assumptions unsupported by robust data and are highly context-dependent. There is a lack of clarity in the included studies regarding whether existing clinical head rules were used to define the study populations (i.e., to determine which patients would be recommended for CT scanning) and, if so, which specific rules were applied. Conclusions: Evidence shows that GFAP and UCH-L1 can safely exclude ICI in adults with mTBI in whom a CT scan would otherwise be considered based on clinical assessment or decision rules. Nevertheless, real-world evidence and cost-effectiveness data are scarce. Further prospective studies, including paediatric and elderly populations, and integration with clinical decision rules will be informative to ensure optimal use in clinical practice.