Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 252

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Routine follow up after head injury: a second randomised controlled trial

Open access
Wade, D T, King, N S, Wenden, F J, Crawford, S, Caldwell, F E·1998·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To confirm that patients admitted to hospital with a head injury benefit from a routinely offered early intervention service. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A mixed rural and urban Health District of 560000 people with two accident and emergency departments provided the setting. Existing routine services for most patients with head injury are minimal. All patients aged 16-65 years admitted to hospital after a head injury of any severity, with or without other injuries entered the trial. Prospective randomisation, with a block randomisation procedure was used to allocate all eligible patients to either: a group offered an additional service by a specialist team; or a group receiving existing standard services. Patients were assessed at follow up six months after injury. The primary outcome measure was the Rivermead head injury follow up questionnaire, a validated and reliable measure of social disability. The Rivermead post-concussion symptoms questionnaire was used to estimate severity of post-concussion symptoms. Each patient in the trial group was contacted 7-10 days after injury, and offered assessment and interventions as needed. These initially focused on the provision of information, support, and advice. Forty six per cent of patients in the trial group also received further outpatient intervention or additional support by telephone. RESULTS: 314 patients were registered: 184 were randomised into the trial group, 130 into the control group. For prognostic data, the groups were comparable at randomisation, and remained comparable when assessed at six months. 132 trial and 86 control patients were followed up at six months after injury. Patients' posttraumatic amnesia ranged from mild (n=79, 40%), and moderate (n=62, 32%), to severe (n=38, 19%) and very severe (n=17, 9%). The trial group patients had significantly less social disability (p=0.01) and significantly less severe post-concussion symptoms (p=0.02) at follow up at six months after injury than the control group patients. CONCLUSIONS: The early interventions offered by a specialist service significantly reduced social morbidity and severity of post-concussion symptoms in trial group patients at six months after head injury. Recommendations about how specialist services should be targeted are made both in the light of these results and those from a previous randomised controlled trial.

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 · 10.1136/jnnp.65.2.177

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 252

Metadata

Authors
Wade, D. T., King, N. S., Wenden, F. J., Crawford, S., & Caldwell, F. E.
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-08-01
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
177-183
ISSN
0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156545709
Cited by
252
References
5
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Routine follow up after head injury: a second randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jnnp.65.2.177
The paper
Wade, D. T., King, N. S., Wenden, F. J., Crawford, S., & Caldwell, F. E. (1998). Routine follow up after head injury: a second randomised controlled trial. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.65.2.177

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.