BACKGROUND: Guidelines for defining the minimally conscious state (MCS) specify behaviors that characterize emergence, including "reliable and consistent" functional communication (accurate yes/no responding). Guidelines were developed by consensus because of lack of empirical data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of the operational threshold for emergence from posttraumatic MCS, by determining yes/no accuracy to questions of varied difficulty, including simple orientation questions, using all items from the Yes/No Subscale of the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test. METHOD: Prospective observational study of a cohort of responsive patients recovering from traumatic brain injury in an acute inpatient brain injury rehabilitation program. RESULTS: Of the 629 observations from 144 participants, name recognition was the easiest yes/no question, with nonconfused individuals responding with 100% accuracy, whereas only 75% to 78% of confused participants on initial evaluation answered this question correctly. Generalized Estimating Equations analysis revealed that confused participants were more likely to respond inaccurately to all yes/no questions. Nonconfused participants had a reduction in odds of inaccuracy ranging from 45.6% to 99.7% (p = 0.001 to 0.02) depending on the type of yes/no question. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy for simple orientation yes/no questions remains challenging for responsive patients in early recovery from traumatic brain injury. Although name recognition questions are relatively easier than other types of yes/no questions, including situational orientation questions, confused patients still may answer these incorrectly. Results suggest the operational threshold for yes/no response accuracy as a diagnostic criterion for emergence from the minimally conscious state should be revisited, with particular consideration of the type of yes/no questions and the requisite accuracy threshold for responses.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for defining the minimally conscious state (MCS) specify behaviors that characterize emergence, including "reliable and consistent" functional communication (accurate yes/no responding). Guidelines were developed by consensus because of lack of empirical data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of the operational threshold for emergence from posttraumatic MCS, by determining yes/no accuracy to questions of varied difficulty, including simple orientation questions, using all items from the Yes/No Subscale of the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test. METHOD: Prospective observational study of a cohort of responsive patients recovering from traumatic brain injury in an acute inpatient brain injury rehabilitation program. RESULTS: Of the 629 observations from 144 participants, name recognition was the easiest yes/no question, with nonconfused individuals responding with 100% accuracy, whereas only 75% to 78% of confused participants on initial evaluation answered this question correctly. Generalized Estimating Equations analysis revealed that confused participants were more likely to respond inaccurately to all yes/no questions. Nonconfused participants had a reduction in odds of inaccuracy ranging from 45.6% to 99.7% (p = 0.001 to 0.02) depending on the type of yes/no question. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy for simple orientation yes/no questions remains challenging for responsive patients in early recovery from traumatic brain injury. Although name recognition questions are relatively easier than other types of yes/no questions, including situational orientation questions, confused patients still may answer these incorrectly. Results suggest the operational threshold for yes/no response accuracy as a diagnostic criterion for emergence from the minimally conscious state should be revisited, with particular consideration of the type of yes/no questions and the requisite accuracy threshold for responses.
Authors: Katherine Golden; Kimberly S Erler; John Wong; Joseph T Giacino; Yelena G Bodien Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Risa Nakase-Richardson; Marie N Dahdah; Emily Almeida; Peter Ricketti; Marc A Silva; Karel Calero; Ulysses Magalang; Daniel J Schwartz Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Srivas Chennu; Paola Finoia; Evelyn Kamau; Judith Allanson; Guy B Williams; Martin M Monti; Valdas Noreika; Aurina Arnatkeviciute; Andrés Canales-Johnson; Francisco Olivares; Daniela Cabezas-Soto; David K Menon; John D Pickard; Adrian M Owen; Tristan A Bekinschtein Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Johan Stender; Ron Kupers; Anders Rodell; Aurore Thibaut; Camille Chatelle; Marie-Aurélie Bruno; Michael Gejl; Claire Bernard; Roland Hustinx; Steven Laureys; Albert Gjedde Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Srivas Chennu; Paola Finoia; Evelyn Kamau; Martin M Monti; Judith Allanson; John D Pickard; Adrian M Owen; Tristan A Bekinschtein Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 4.881