Allen W Brown1, Christopher R Pretz2, Kathleen R Bell3, Flora M Hammond4, David B Arciniegas5,6,7, Yelena G Bodien8,9, Kristen Dams-O'Connor10, Joseph T Giacino9, Tessa Hart11, Douglas Johnson-Greene12, Robert G Kowalski13, William C Walker14, Alan Weintraub15, Ross Zafonte9,16. 1. a Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , Mayo Clinic , Rochester , Minnesota , USA. 2. b Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Data and Statistical Center , Craig Hospital , Englewood , Colorado , USA. 3. c Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , University of Texas Southwestern , Dallas , Texas , USA. 4. d Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , Indiana University School of Medicine, Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana , Indianapolis , Indiana , USA. 5. e Center for Mental Health , Gunnison , Colorado , USA. 6. f Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry , University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora , Colorado , USA. 7. g Brain Injury Research Center , TIRR Memorial Hermann , Houston , Texas , USA. 8. h Department of Neurology , Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston , Massachusetts , USA. 9. i Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital , Charlestown , Massachusetts , USA. 10. j Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and Department of Neurology , Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , New York , New York , USA. 11. k Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute , Elkins Park , Pennsylvania , USA. 12. l Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , University of Miami-Miller School of Medicine , Miami , Florida , USA. 13. m Research Department , Craig Hospital , Englewood , Colorado , USA. 14. n Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond , Virginia , USA. 15. o Craig Hospital-Rocky Mountain Regional Brain Injury System , Craig Hospital , Englewood , Colorado , USA. 16. p Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston , Massachusetts , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the predictive relationship among persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) between an objective indicator of injury severity (the adapted Marshall computed tomography [CT] classification scheme) and clinical indicators of injury severity in the acute phase, functional outcomes at inpatient rehabilitation discharge, and functional and participation outcomes at 1 year after injury, including death. PARTICIPANTS: The sample involved 4895 individuals who received inpatient rehabilitation following acute hospitalization for TBI and were enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Database between 1989 and 2014. DESIGN: Head CT variables for each person were fit into adapted Marshall CT classification categories I through IV. MAIN MEASURES: Prediction models were developed to determine the amount of variability explained by the CT classification categories compared with commonly used predictors, including a clinical indicator of injury severity. RESULTS: The adapted Marshall classification categories aided only in the prediction of craniotomy or craniectomy during acute hospitalization, otherwise making no meaningful contribution to variance in the multivariable models predicting outcomes at any time point after injury. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that head CT findings classified in this manner do not inform clinical discussions related to functional prognosis or rehabilitation planning after TBI. ABBREVIATIONS: CT: computed tomography; DRS: disability rating scale; EGOS: extended Glasgow outcome scale; FIM: functional independence measure; NDB: National Data Base; PTA: posttraumatic amnesia; RLOS: rehabilitation length of stay; SPOS: semipartial omega squared statistic; TBI: traumatic brain injury; TBIMS: Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems.
OBJECTIVE: To study the predictive relationship among persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) between an objective indicator of injury severity (the adapted Marshall computed tomography [CT] classification scheme) and clinical indicators of injury severity in the acute phase, functional outcomes at inpatient rehabilitation discharge, and functional and participation outcomes at 1 year after injury, including death. PARTICIPANTS: The sample involved 4895 individuals who received inpatient rehabilitation following acute hospitalization for TBI and were enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Database between 1989 and 2014. DESIGN: Head CT variables for each person were fit into adapted Marshall CT classification categories I through IV. MAIN MEASURES: Prediction models were developed to determine the amount of variability explained by the CT classification categories compared with commonly used predictors, including a clinical indicator of injury severity. RESULTS: The adapted Marshall classification categories aided only in the prediction of craniotomy or craniectomy during acute hospitalization, otherwise making no meaningful contribution to variance in the multivariable models predicting outcomes at any time point after injury. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that head CT findings classified in this manner do not inform clinical discussions related to functional prognosis or rehabilitation planning after TBI. ABBREVIATIONS: CT: computed tomography; DRS: disability rating scale; EGOS: extended Glasgow outcome scale; FIM: functional independence measure; NDB: National Data Base; PTA: posttraumatic amnesia; RLOS: rehabilitation length of stay; SPOS: semipartial omega squared statistic; TBI: traumatic brain injury; TBIMS: Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems.
Authors: Esther L Yuh; Shelly R Cooper; Pratik Mukherjee; John K Yue; Hester F Lingsma; Wayne A Gordon; Alex B Valadka; David O Okonkwo; David M Schnyer; Mary J Vassar; Andrew I R Maas; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: James F Malec; Flora M Hammond; Joseph T Giacino; John Whyte; Jerry Wright Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-04-14 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Allen W Brown; James F Malec; Robyn L McClelland; Nancy N Diehl; Jeffrey Englander; David X Cifu Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Kathryn E Saatman; Ann-Christine Duhaime; Ross Bullock; Andrew I R Maas; Alex Valadka; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Kayla M Frodsham; Joseph E Fair; R Brock Frost; Ramona O Hopkins; Erin D Bigler; Sarah Majercik; Joseph Bledsoe; David Ryser; Joel MacDonald; Ryan Barrett; Susan D Horn; David Pisani; Mark Stevens; Michael J Larson Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Elisabeth A Wilde; Ina-Beate Wanner; Kimbra Kenney; Jessica Gill; James R Stone; Seth Disner; Caroline Schnakers; Retsina Meyer; Eric M Prager; Magali Haas; Andreas Jeromin Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 5.269