4.2 Article

Cognitive reserve as a moderator of postconcussive symptoms in children with complicated and uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1355617709991007

关键词

Nervous system trauma; Pediatric; Prospective studies; Head injury; Concussion; Head trauma; Cognitive ability

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01 HD39834, K02 HD44099]
  2. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [K02HD044099, R01HD039834] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Occurrence of postconcussive symptoms (PCS) following mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) in children may depend on cognitive reserve capacity. This prospective, longitudinal study examined whether the relationship between mild TBI and PCS is moderated by cognitive ability, which served as a proxy for cognitive reserve. Participants included 182 children with mild TBI and 99 children with orthopedic injuries (OI). ranging from 8 to 15 years of age when injured. Mild TBI were classified as complicated (n = 32) or uncomplicated (n = 150) depending oil whether they were associated with trauma-related intracranial abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging. PCS were assessed initially within 3 weeks of injury, and again at 1, 3, and 12 months post injury. The initial assessment also included standardized tests of children's cognitive skills and retrospective parent ratings of pre-injury symptoms. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that ratings of PCS were moderated jointly by cognitive ability and injury severity. Children of lower cognitive ability with a complicated mild TBI were especially prone to cognitive symptoms across time according to parents and to high acute levels of PCS according to children's self-ratings. Cognitive reserve is an important moderator of the outcomes of mild TBI in children and adolescents. (JINS, 2010, 16, 94-105.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据