Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 844

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rehabilitation of Persons With Traumatic Brain Injury

NIH Consensus Development Panel on Rehabilitation of Persons With Traumatic Brain Injury·1999·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
DOI 10.1001/jama.282.10.974
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this NIH Consensus Statement is to inform the biomedical research and clinical practice communities of the results of the NIH Consensus Development Conference on Rehabilitation of Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury. The statement provides state-of-the-art information regarding effective rehabilitation measures for persons who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and presents the conclusions and recommendations of the consensus panel regarding these issues. In addition, the statement identifies those areas that deserve further investigation. Upon completion of this educational activity, the reader should possess a clear working clinical knowledge of the state of the art regarding this topic. The target audience for this statement includes, but is not limited to, pediatricians, family practitioners, internists, neurologists, physiatrists, psychologists, and behavioral medicine specialists. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were a non-Federal, nonadvocate, 16-member panel representing the fields of neuropsychology, neurology, psychiatry, behavioral medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, speech and hearing, occupational therapy, nursing, epidemiology, biostatistics and the public. In addition, 23 experts from these same fields presented data to the panel and a conference audience of 883. EVIDENCE: The literature was searched through Medline and an extensive bibliography of references was provided to the panel and the conference audience. Experts prepared abstracts with relevant citations from the literature. A compendium of evidence was prepared by the panel which included a contribution from a patient with TBI, a report from an Evidence Based Practice Center of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, and a report from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel, answering predefined questions, developed their conclusions based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The panel composed a draft statement that was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. The draft statement was made available on the World Wide Web immediately following its release at the conference and was updated with the panel's final revisions. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) results principally from vehicular incidents, falls, acts of violence, and sports injuries, and is more than twice as likely in males as in females. The estimated incidence rate is 100 per 100,000 persons with 52,000 annual deaths. The highest incidence is among persons 15 to 24 years of age and 75 years and older, with an additional less striking peak in incidence in children ages 5 and younger. Since TBI may result in lifelong impairment of an individual's physical, cognitive, and psychosocial functioning and prevalence is estimated to be 2.5 million to 6.5 million individuals, TBI is a disorder of major public health significance. Furthermore, mild TBI is significantly under diagnosed and the likely societal burden therefore even greater. Given the large toll of TBI and absence of a cure, prevention is of paramount importance. However, the focus of this conference was the evaluation of rehabilitative measures available for the cognitive and behavioral consequences of TBI. Although studies are relatively limited, available evidence supports the use of certain cognitive and behavioral rehabilitation strategies for individuals with TBI. This research needs to be replicated in larger, more definitive clinical trials. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.282.10.974

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Injury, N. C. D. P. O. R. O. P. W. T. B.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1999-09-08
Volume
282
Issue
10
Pages
974-983
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
  • 1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.282.10.974
OpenAlex
W2600339308
Cited by
844
References
8
FWCI
17.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.