Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 764

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Persistent postconcussion syndrome: The structure of subjective complaints after mild traumatic brain injury

Cicerone, Keith D., Kalmar, Kathleen·1995·Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1097/00001199-199506000-00002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To examine the structure of persistent postconcussive symptoms in a sample of patients with mild traumatic brain injury. Design: Multivariate discriminant analysis in a series of 50 consecutive clinical referrals evaluated for postconcussive symptoms, neuropsychological functioning, and personality and emotional functioning at least 3 months after injury; follow-up information regarding level of disability was obtained for 37 patients at least 1 year after injury. Setting: Neuropsychology clinic affiliated with a comprehensive brain trauma rehabilitation center. Patients: 50 consecutively referred patients with a diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury referred by physicians, rehabilitation nurses, or attorneys because of persistent deficits or subjective complaints consistent with a postconcussion syndrome. Main Outcome Measure: Postconcussive symptoms endorsed on the Post Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Symptom Checklist. Results: Four factors consisting of multiple symptoms were identified: cognitive factor, affective factor, somatic factor, and sensory factor. Using these four factors, K-means cluster analysis of subjects was applied to classify patients. Patient clusters consisted of those with minimal symptoms, those with primarily cognitive-affective symptoms, those with prominent somatic symptoms, and those with severe global symptoms (P = .000). Patient symptom clusters were largely unrelated to neurological or neuropsychological functioning. The presence of chronic disability and resumption of productive functioning differed significantly among groups (P = .003). Conclusions: Subjective complaints provide clinically meaningful information and are strongly related to the nature and extent of disability after mild traumatic brain injury. Characterization of a single postconcussive syndrome may be misleading, and it may be more meaningful to define a number of postconcussive syndromes with differing symptom profiles and recovery.

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 · 10.1097/00001199-199506000-00002

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cicerone, K. D., & Kalmar, K.
Venue
Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1995-06
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
1-17
ISSN
0885-9701 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00001199-199506000-00002
OpenAlex
W2031504469
Cited by
764
References
0
FWCI
5.30
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.