3.8 Article

Injury severity variables as predictors of WeeFIM scores in pediatric TBI: Time to follow commands is best

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 2, Issue 4, Pages 297-307

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/PRM-2009-0092

Keywords

Traumatic brain injury; children; outcome; coma; post-traumatic amnesia

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [K12HD001097]
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [K12HD001097] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI), early prognosis of expected function is important for optimizing care. The power of several common brain injury severity measures for predicting functional outcome in children with TBI was investigated; the severity variables studied were Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, time to follow commands (TFC), duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA), and total duration of impaired consciousness (TFC+PTA). Outcome was assessed using the Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM) at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation (n = 120) and, in a subset of children, at 3 months following discharge. Correlations and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted using GCS, TFC, PTA, and TFC+PTA to predict age-corrected WeeFIM scores. Models in which TFC and PTA duration were entered as separate variables and as a combined variable (TFC+PTA) were all significantly predictive of WeeFIM scores at discharge; however, TFC accounted for the greatest portion of variance in WeeFIM scores. Among children with moderate to severe TBI who received inpatient rehabilitation, TFC was the best predictor of general functional outcome at discharge and follow-up. Our findings highlight the need for careful and consistent assessment of TFC to assist in predicting functional outcomes as early and accurately as possible.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available