The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Longitudinal neuropsychological outcome in infants and preschoolers with traumatic brain injury
Abstract
Neuropsychological outcome was evaluated in a prospective, longitudinal follow-up study of children age 4 months to 7 years at injury with either mild-to-moderate (N = 35) or severe (N = 44) traumatic brain injury (TBI). Age-appropriate tests were administered at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after the injury. Performance was compared on (1) composite IQ and motor, (2) receptive and expressive language, and (3) Verbal and Perceptual–Performance IQ scores. In comparison to mild-to-moderate TBI, severe TBI in infants and preschoolers produced deficits in all areas. Interactions between task and severity of injury were obtained. Motor scores were lower than IQ scores, particularly after severe TBI. Both receptive and expressive scores were reduced following severe TBI. Expressive language scores were lower than receptive language scores for children sustaining mild-to-moderate TBI. While severe TBI lowered both Verbal and Perceptual– Performance IQ scores, Verbal IQ scores were significantly lower than Perceptual–Performance IQ scores after mild-to-moderate TBI. Mild injuries may produce subtle linguistic changes adversely impacting estimates of Verbal IQ and expressive language. Within the limited age range evaluated within this study, age at injury was unrelated to test scores: The impact of TBI was comparable in children ages 4 to 41 months versus 42 to 72 months at the time of injury. All neuropsychological scores improved significantly from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. However, no further change in scores was observed from 6 to 24 months after the injury. The persistent deficits and lack of catch-up over time suggest a reduction in the rate of acquisition of new skills after severe TBI. Methodological issues in longitudinal studies of young children were discussed. (JINS, 1997, 3, 581–591.)
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Severe disturbance of higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: Patient EVR
Eslinger, P. J., & Damasio, A. R. (1985) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.35.12.1731 · Cited by 1,426 · cited 1×
“Long-term follow-up should ideally encompass 10 to 20 ears, so that the impact of early brain injury on later developing abilities, such as executive functions, can be evaluated (Eslinger & Damasio, 1985).”
Background
Cited by
Neurocognitive outcomes and recovery after pediatric TBI: meta-analytic review of the literature
Babikian, T., & Asarnow, R. (2009) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/a0015268 · Cited by 557
Mangeot, S., Armstrong, K., Colvin, A. N., Yeates, K. O., & Taylor, H. G. (2002) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1076/chin.8.4.271.13503 · Cited by 257
Crowe, L. M., Catroppa, C., Babl, F. E., & Anderson, V. (2012) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0438 · Cited by 119
Keenan, H. T., Presson, A. P., Clark, A. E., Cox, C. S., & Ewing-Cobbs, L. (2019) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2018.5687 · Cited by 56
Self-citationEwing-Cobbs, L., Prasad, M. R., Mendez, D., Barnes, M. A., & Swank, P. (2013) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617713000210 · Cited by 21
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- EWING-COBBS, L., FLETCHER, J. M., LEVIN, H. S., FRANCIS, D. J., DAVIDSON, K., & MINER, M. E.
- Venue
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 581-591
- ISSN
- 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7661
- OpenAlex
- W2267956829
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.68
- 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.