G Mooney1, J Speed, S Sheppard. 1. Division of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA. gmooney@hsc.utah.edu
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To study the variables that relate to outcome after mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Sixty-seven adults with disappointing recoveries after mild TBI most occurring in a compensation or litigation context were studied with regard to pre-injury, neuro-trauma, physical, emotional and cognitive variables on outcome. Validity of physical, emotional and cognitive symptoms was controlled for. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Except for prior psychological traumatization, neither pre-injury, neuro-trauma or cognitive variables were related to outcome. Variables most consistently related to outcome were depression, pain and symptom invalidity on measures of response bias. These factors accounted for the majority of variance in outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of poor recovery after mild TBI where compensation or litigation may be a factor, most of the variance in recovery seems to be explained by depression, pain and symptom invalidity, rather than by the injury variables themselves.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To study the variables that relate to outcome after mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Sixty-seven adults with disappointing recoveries after mild TBI most occurring in a compensation or litigation context were studied with regard to pre-injury, neuro-trauma, physical, emotional and cognitive variables on outcome. Validity of physical, emotional and cognitive symptoms was controlled for. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Except for prior psychological traumatization, neither pre-injury, neuro-trauma or cognitive variables were related to outcome. Variables most consistently related to outcome were depression, pain and symptom invalidity on measures of response bias. These factors accounted for the majority of variance in outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of poor recovery after mild TBI where compensation or litigation may be a factor, most of the variance in recovery seems to be explained by depression, pain and symptom invalidity, rather than by the injury variables themselves.
Authors: Paul McCrory; Willem H Meeuwisse; Mark Aubry; Robert C Cantu; Jiři Dvořák; Ruben J Echemendia; Lars Engebretsen; Karen Johnston; Jeffrey S Kutcher; Martin Raftery; Allen Sills; Brian W Benson; Gavin A Davis; Richard Ellenbogen; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Stanley A Herring; Grant L Iverson; Barry D Jordan; James Kissick; Michael McCrea; Andrew S McIntosh; David Maddocks; Michael Makdissi; Laura Purcell; Margot Putukian; Kathryn Schneider; Charles H Tator; Michael Turner Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Jane L Mathias; Yasmin Harman-Smith; Stephen C Bowden; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld; Erin D Bigler Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Charles H Bombardier; Jesse R Fann; Nancy R Temkin; Peter C Esselman; Jason Barber; Sureyya S Dikmen Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Katherine M Iverson; Ann M Hendricks; Rachel Kimerling; Maxine Krengel; Mark Meterko; Kelly L Stolzmann; Errol Baker; Terri K Pogoda; Jennifer J Vasterling; Henry L Lew Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2011 Jul-Aug
Authors: Jennifer M Medina McKeon; Scott C Livingston; Ashley Reed; Robert G Hosey; Williams S Black; Heather M Bush Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 2.860