CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 464Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 203 of the 210 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recommendations for the Use of Common Outcome Measures in Traumatic Brain Injury Research

Open access
Wilde, Elisabeth A., Whiteneck, Gale G., Bogner, Jennifer, Bushnik, Tamara, Cifu, David X., Dikmen, Sureyya, French, Louis, Giacino, Joseph T., Hart, Tessa, Malec, James F., Millis, Scott R., Novack, Thomas A., Sherer, Mark, Tulsky, David S., Vanderploeg, Rodney D., von Steinbuechel, Nicole·2010·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article summarizes the selection of outcome measures by the interagency Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Outcomes Workgroup to address primary clinical research objectives, including documentation of the natural course of recovery from TBI, prediction of later outcome, measurement of treatment effects, and comparison of outcomes across studies. Consistent with other Common Data Elements Workgroups, the TBI Outcomes Workgroup adopted the standard 3-tier system in its selection of measures. In the first tier, core measures included valid, robust, and widely applicable outcome measures with proven utility in TBI from each identified domain, including global level of function, neuropsychological impairment, psychological status, TBI-related symptoms, executive functions, cognitive and physical activity limitations, social role participation, and perceived health-related quality of life. In the second tier, supplemental measures were recommended for consideration in TBI research focusing on specific topics or populations. In the third tier, emerging measures included important instruments currently under development, in the process of validation, or nearing the point of published findings that have significant potential to be superior to some older ("legacy") measures in the core and supplemental lists and may eventually replace them as evidence for their utility emerges.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.033

Cites

203 of 203 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 210 references

7 of the 210 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Mellick, 1999, Incorporating the cognitive independence domain into CHART, J Rehabil Outcomes Meas, 3, 12
  2. Weathers F, Litz B, Herman D, Huska J, Keane T. The PTSD Checklist (PCL): reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Convention of the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies, October 25, San Antonio, Texas; 1993.
  3. Miller, 2005, The Neuro-QOL project: establishing research priorities through qualitative research and consensus development, Qual Life Res, 14, 2031
  4. Tulsky DS, Carlozzi NE, Kisala P, Victorson D, Cella D. New initiatives to develop patient reported outcomes measures for research with neurological populations. Proceedings of the International Neuropsychological Society, February 11–14, 2009, Atlanta, GA; 2009.
  5. Tulsky DS, Kisala P, Victorson D, Carlozzi NE, Cella D. Development of tailored outcomes measures for traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury. Proceedings of the American Academy of Neurology, April 25–May 2, 2009, Seattle, Washington; 2009.
  6. Wilson, 1998, Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use, J Neurotrauma, 15, 573, 10.1089/neu.1998.15.573 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Malec, 2003, Further psychometric evaluation and revision of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory in a national sample, J Head Trauma Rehabil, 18, 479, 10.1097/00001199-200311000-00002 · DOI
  8. Malec, 2004, Comparability of Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory ratings by staff, significant others and people with acquired brain injury, Brain Inj, 18, 563, 10.1080/02699050310001646134 · DOI
  9. Murrey, 2005, Assessment of anosognosia in persons with frontal lobe damage: clinical utility of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI), Brain Inj, 19, 599, 10.1080/02699050400025257 · DOI
  10. Hall, 1985, Glasgow Outcome Scale and Disability Rating Scale: comparative usefulness in following recovery in traumatic head injury, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 66, 35
  11. Jennett, 1975, Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage, Lancet, 1, 480, 10.1016/S0140-6736(75)92830-5 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Smith, 1979, A functional scale of recovery from severe head trauma, Clin Neuropsychol, 1, 48
  13. Findler, 2001, The reliability and validity of the SF-36 health survey questionnaire for use with individuals with traumatic brain injury, Brain Inj, 15, 715, 10.1080/02699050010013941 · DOI · Paper page
  14. McNaughton, 2005, Functional measures across neurologic disease states: analysis of factors in common, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 86, 2184, 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.06.010 · DOI
  15. Emanuelson, 2003, Quality of life and post-concussion symptoms in adults after mild traumatic brain injury: a population-based study in western Sweden, Acta Neurol Scand, 108, 332, 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2003.00155.x · DOI
  16. Giacino, 2004, The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 85, 2020, 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.033 · DOI
  17. Schnakers, 2008, Measuring the effect of amantadine in chronic anoxic minimally conscious state, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 79, 225, 10.1136/jnnp.2007.124099 · DOI
  18. Schnakers, 2008, A French validation study of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R), Brain Inj, 22, 786, 10.1080/02699050802403557 · DOI
  19. Schnakers, 2006, Does the FOUR score correctly diagnose the vegetative and minimally conscious states?, Ann Neurol, 60, 744, 10.1002/ana.20919 · DOI
  20. Giacino, 1997, The vegetative and minimally conscious states: a comparison of clinical features and functional outcome, J Head Trauma Rehabil, 12, 36, 10.1097/00001199-199708000-00005 · DOI
  21. Schiff, 2007, Behavioural improvements with thalamic stimulation after severe traumatic brain injury, Nature, 448, 600, 10.1038/nature06041 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Millis, 2001, Long-term neuropsychological outcome after traumatic brain injury, J Head Trauma Rehabil, 16, 343, 10.1097/00001199-200108000-00005 · DOI
  23. Henry, 2004, A meta-analytic review of verbal fluency performance in patients with traumatic brain injury, Neuropsychology, 18, 621, 10.1037/0894-4105.18.4.621 · DOI
  24. Myers, 1999, Validation of reliable digits for detection of malingering, Assessment, 5, 303, 10.1177/107319119800500309 · DOI
  25. Ball, 2007, Comparative utility of Barona Formulae, Wtar demographic algorithms, and WRAT-3 reading for estimating premorbid ability in a diverse research sample, Clin Neuropsychol, 21, 422, 10.1080/13854040600582577 · DOI
  26. Orme, 2004, The WRAT-3 Reading Subtest is a measure of premorbid intelligence among persons with brain injury, Rehabil Psychol, 49, 250, 10.1037/0090-5550.49.3.250 · DOI
  27. Boake, 2001, Using early neuropsychologic testing to predict long-term productivity outcome from traumatic brain injury, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 82, 761, 10.1053/apmr.2001.23753 · DOI
  28. Sherer, 2002, Early cognitive status and productivity outcome after traumatic brain injury: findings from the TBI model systems, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 83, 183, 10.1053/apmr.2002.28802 · DOI
  29. Ponsford, 2007, Alcohol and drug use following traumatic brain injury, a prospective study, Brain Inj, 21, 1385, 10.1080/02699050701796960 · DOI
  30. King, 1995, The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a measure of symptoms commonly experienced after head injury and its reliability, J Neurol, 242, 587, 10.1007/BF00868811 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Crawford, 1996, The Rivermead head injury follow up questionnaire: a study of a new rating scale and other measures to evaluate outcome after head injury, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 60, 510, 10.1136/jnnp.60.5.510 · DOI
  32. Ingebrigtsen, 2000, The clinical value of serum S-100 protein measurements in minor head injury: a Scandinavian multicentre study, Brain Inj, 14, 1047, 10.1080/02699050050203540 · DOI
  33. Smits, 2009, Postconcussion syndrome after minor head injury: brain activation of working memory and attention, Hum Brain Mapp, 30, 2789, 10.1002/hbm.20709 · DOI
  34. Wilde, 2008, Diffusion tensor imaging of acute mild traumatic brain injury in adolescents, Neurology, 70, 948, 10.1212/01.wnl.0000305961.68029.54 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Norton, 2001, The impact of behavioral symptoms on activities of daily living in patients with dementia, Am J Geriatr Psychiatry, 9, 41, 10.1097/00019442-200102000-00007 · DOI
  36. Reid-Arndt, 2007, The Frontal Systems Behaviour Scale (FrSBe) as a predictor of community integration following a traumatic brain injury, Brain Inj, 21, 1361, 10.1080/02699050701785062 · DOI
  37. Stout, 2003, Factor analysis of the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe), Assessment, 10, 79, 10.1177/1073191102250339 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Hobart, 2001, Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation?, Neurology, 57, 639, 10.1212/WNL.57.4.639 · DOI
  39. Hammond, 2004, Change and predictors of change in communication, cognition, and social function between 1 and 5 years after traumatic brain injury, J Head Trauma Rehabil, 19, 314, 10.1097/00001199-200407000-00006 · DOI
  40. Hamilton, 1991, Interrater agreement of the seven-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 72, 790
  41. Whiteneck, 1992, Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 73, 519
  42. Mellick, 1999, Incorporating the cognitive independence domain into CHART, J Rehabil Outcomes Meas, 3, 12
  43. Walker, 2003, Measuring participation across impairment groups using the Craig Handicap Assessment Reporting Technique, Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 82, 936, 10.1097/01.PHM.0000098041.42394.9A · DOI · Paper page
  44. Diener, 1985, The Satisfaction With Life Scale, J Pers Assess, 49, 71, 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 1990, EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life, Health Policy, 16, 199, 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Klose, 2007, Posttraumatic hypopituitarism is associated with an unfavorable body composition and lipid profile, and decreased quality of life 12 months after injury, J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 92, 3861, 10.1210/jc.2007-0901 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Bell, 2005, The effect of a scheduled telephone intervention on outcome after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a randomized trial, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 86, 851, 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.09.015 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 464

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wilde, E. A., Whiteneck, G. G., Bogner, J., Bushnik, T., Cifu, D. X., Dikmen, S., French, L., Giacino, J. T., Hart, T., Malec, J. F., Millis, S. R., Novack, T. A., Sherer, M., Tulsky, D. S., Vanderploeg, R. D., & von Steinbuechel, N.
Affiliations
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Craig Hospital (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Rusk Rehabilitation (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Moss Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
  • Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Memorial Hermann Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Foundation (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Wilde, Elisabeth A.
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
91
Issue
11
Pages
1650-1660.e17
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.033
OpenAlex
W2080875271
Cited by
461
References
210
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 17
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, outcome measures, common data elements, outcome prediction, treatment effect measurement, neuropsychological deficits, executive function, health-related quality of life, social role participation, psychological state, inter-agency cooperation
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Disability Evaluation, Humans, Quality of Life, Research Design, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic

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