Cited by 48Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

Multimodal Early Rehabilitation and Predictors of Outcome in Survivors of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Choi, Jae H., Jakob, Michael, Stapf, Christian, Marshall, Randolph S., Hartmann, Andreas, Mast, Henning·2008·Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection & Critical Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To determine the effect of brain lesion pattern on early recovery after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: In a setting of a multimodal early rehabilitation unit at a level I trauma center, 135 consecutive survivors of severe TBI (mean age, 40 years, 25% women) were studied prospectively. Assessment of disability was performed weekly using an extended Barthel Index (eBI) ranging from -325 to +100 points. Clinical and brain morphologic variables were tested in multivariate logistic regression models to determine predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Imaging revealed cerebral contusion in 115 patients (85%) affecting the frontal (n = 80), temporal (n = 62), parieto-occipital (n = 17), brain stem (n = 13), and cerebellar (n = 5) regions. In addition, 80 patients (59%) showed diffuse brain edema, 75 (55%) subarachnoid, 37 (28%) subdural, and 18 (13%) epidural hemorrhage. After a mean stay of 72 +/- 51 days in the early rehabilitation unit, one patient died, 40 (30%) revealed good outcome (median eBI, +55), and a further 43 patients (32%) showed excellent outcomes (eBI, 90-100). Temporal (odds ratio 2.6; 95% confidence interval 1.1-6.5) and brain stem contusions (odds ratio 13.8; 95% confidence interval 3.0-64.1) were independent predictors of poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal and brain stem contusions constitute independent risk factors for poor outcome in survivors of severe TBI. The results further suggest a high potential for multimodal early rehabilitation after severe TBI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ta.0b013e31815eba9b

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choi, J. H., Jakob, M., Stapf, C., Marshall, R. S., Hartmann, A., & Mast, H.
Affiliations
  • BG Klinikum Bergmannstrost Halle (DE)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection & Critical Care
Published
2008-11
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
1028-1035
ISSN
0022-5282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2048190605
Cited by
48
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
severe traumatic brain injury, cerebral contusion, prognostic factors, functional disability, subarachnoid hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain Injuries, Brain Stem, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Temporal Lobe, Time Factors, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Survivors, Recovery of Function

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