F M Hammond1, K D Grattan, H Sasser, J D Corrigan, T Bushnik, R D Zafonte. 1. Brain Injury Research, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Charlotte Institute of Rehabilitation, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina 28203, USA. fhammond@carolinas.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study group changes over time after traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: TBI Model System Database with 1160 subjects using cohort with complete data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Disability Rating Scale (DRS) at rehabilitation discharge and annually after injury. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences existed between FIM-total, FIM-Motor, FIM-Cognitive subscales, and DRS at rehabilitation discharge and year 1. Comparisons of year-to-year intervals, years 1 and 3, 1 and 5, and 3 and 5, revealed no statistically significant differences except between years 1 and 3 and 1 and 5 with DRS, and years 1 and 5 with FIM. Including only those more dependent at year 1 revealed statistically significant differences between years 1 and 2 and 1 and 5 on FIM-Cognitive and DRS, but not the FIM-Motor. The proportion of change for FIM and DRS items from year 1 to years 2 and 5 revealed DRS Level of Functioning and Employability items accounted for most DRS change, whereas FIM change was more spread across its components. CONCLUSIONS: DRS is more sensitive to changes during a shorter time period than FIM and seems to be more appropriate for detecting long-term deficits. However, research studies aimed at detecting meaningful changes year to year after TBI may need to use other tools or consider changes among individuals instead of group changes. DRS Level of Function and Employability Items represent complex functions expected to recover later than the more basic DRS items. Sole use of these two DRS items might provide an efficient means of measuring long-term recovery when resources are limited, whereas expansion of these two items might allow greater sensitivity and detail.
OBJECTIVES: To study group changes over time after traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: TBI Model System Database with 1160 subjects using cohort with complete data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Disability Rating Scale (DRS) at rehabilitation discharge and annually after injury. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences existed between FIM-total, FIM-Motor, FIM-Cognitive subscales, and DRS at rehabilitation discharge and year 1. Comparisons of year-to-year intervals, years 1 and 3, 1 and 5, and 3 and 5, revealed no statistically significant differences except between years 1 and 3 and 1 and 5 with DRS, and years 1 and 5 with FIM. Including only those more dependent at year 1 revealed statistically significant differences between years 1 and 2 and 1 and 5 on FIM-Cognitive and DRS, but not the FIM-Motor. The proportion of change for FIM and DRS items from year 1 to years 2 and 5 revealed DRS Level of Functioning and Employability items accounted for most DRS change, whereas FIM change was more spread across its components. CONCLUSIONS: DRS is more sensitive to changes during a shorter time period than FIM and seems to be more appropriate for detecting long-term deficits. However, research studies aimed at detecting meaningful changes year to year after TBI may need to use other tools or consider changes among individuals instead of group changes. DRS Level of Function and Employability Items represent complex functions expected to recover later than the more basic DRS items. Sole use of these two DRS items might provide an efficient means of measuring long-term recovery when resources are limited, whereas expansion of these two items might allow greater sensitivity and detail.
Authors: James F Malec; Jessica M Ketchum; Flora M Hammond; John D Corrigan; Kristen Dams-OʼConnor; Tessa Hart; Thomas Novack; Marie Dahdah; Gale G Whiteneck; Jennifer Bogner Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2019 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Carlos D Marquez de la Plata; Tessa Hart; Flora M Hammond; Alan B Frol; Anne Hudak; Caryn R Harper; Therese M O'Neil-Pirozzi; John Whyte; Mary Carlile; Ramon Diaz-Arrastia Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Brian L Edlow; Joseph T Giacino; Ronald E Hirschberg; Jason Gerrard; Ona Wu; Leigh R Hochberg Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Yu Jin Kim; Sang Do Shin; Hye Sook Park; Kyoung Jun Song; Jin Sung Cho; Seung Chul Lee; Sung Chun Kim; Ju Ok Park; Ki Ok Ahn; Yu Mi Park Journal: Clin Exp Emerg Med Date: 2016-12-30
Authors: Truman J Milling; Steven Warach; S Claiborne Johnston; Byron Gajewski; Todd Costantini; Michelle Price; Jo Wick; Simin Roward; Dinesh Mudaranthakam; Adrienne N Dula; Ben King; Alexander Muddiman; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 4.869