OBJECTIVE: Preliminary assessment of a new instrument, the Brief Traumatic Brain Injury Screen (BTBIS). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of 596 soldiers returning from Iraq and/or Afghanistan, comparing the consistency of their reports of traumatic brain injury (TBI) across instruments with similar TBI questions, and in a brief follow-up interview. SETTING: Military base. MEASURES: Self-reported probable TBI on the BTBIS and on 2 longer questionnaires, and a brief follow-up interview. RESULTS: Self-reports of probable TBI were higher on the BTBIS, than on the longer instruments. Participants who screened positive on the BTBIS generally provided consistent information about probable TBI in the follow-up interview. CONCLUSIONS: In this initial study, the BTBIS demonstrated promise as part of a triage process in mass casualty situations, permitting individuals with probable TBI to self-report injury and continued symptoms. Further study, including full validation and reliability assessment, is warranted and required before these screening tools can be fully evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: Preliminary assessment of a new instrument, the Brief Traumatic Brain Injury Screen (BTBIS). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of 596 soldiers returning from Iraq and/or Afghanistan, comparing the consistency of their reports of traumatic brain injury (TBI) across instruments with similar TBI questions, and in a brief follow-up interview. SETTING: Military base. MEASURES: Self-reported probable TBI on the BTBIS and on 2 longer questionnaires, and a brief follow-up interview. RESULTS: Self-reports of probable TBI were higher on the BTBIS, than on the longer instruments. Participants who screened positive on the BTBIS generally provided consistent information about probable TBI in the follow-up interview. CONCLUSIONS: In this initial study, the BTBIS demonstrated promise as part of a triage process in mass casualty situations, permitting individuals with probable TBI to self-report injury and continued symptoms. Further study, including full validation and reliability assessment, is warranted and required before these screening tools can be fully evaluated.
Authors: Diane Montella; Steven H Brown; Peter L Elkin; James C Jackson; S Trent Rosenbloom; Dietlind Wahner-Roedler; Gail Welsh; Bryan Cotton; Oscar D Guillamondegui; Henry Lew; Katherine H Taber; Larry A Tupler; Rodney Vanderploeg; Theodore Speroff Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2011-10-22
Authors: Raymond C Rosen; Brian P Marx; Nancy N Maserejian; Darren W Holowka; Margaret A Gates; Lynn A Sleeper; Jennifer J Vasterling; Han K Kang; Terence M Keane Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Kimberly M Avallone; Erin R Smith; Sean Ma; Sean Gargan; Katherine E Porter; Caitlin C Authier; Brian Martis; Israel Liberzon; Sheila A M Rauch Journal: Mil Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Karen H Seal; Greg Cohen; Daniel Bertenthal; Beth E Cohen; Shira Maguen; Aaron Daley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Matthew Beamer; Shanti R Tummala; David Gullotti; Catherine Kopil; Samuel Gorka; Cameron R Dale Bass; Barclay Morrison; Akiva S Cohen; David F Meaney Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Daniel J Taylor; Kristi E Pruiksma; Willie J Hale; Kevin Kelly; Douglas Maurer; Alan L Peterson; Jim Mintz; Brett T Litz; Douglas E Williamson Journal: Sleep Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Eric A Elster; Jonathan P Pearl; John W DeNobile; Philip W Perdue; Alexander Stojadinovic; William A Liston; James R Dunne Journal: Eplasty Date: 2009-07-24