4.2 Article

The Prospective Course of Postconcussion Syndrome: The Role of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 454-465

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0022580

关键词

mild traumatic brain injury; concussion; postconcussion syndrome; posttraumatic stress disorder; pain

资金

  1. Motor Accidents Authority of NSW [04/238]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate whether postconcussion syndrome (PCS) represents long-term sequelae associated with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Methods: Prospective consecutive admissions to a Level 1 trauma hospital were assessed a mean 4.9 days and again 106.2 days post-injury. The final sample comprised 62 mTBI and 58 nonbrain injured trauma controls (TC). Change or lack of change in individual PCS-like symptoms and PCS was examined. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze whether mTBI predicts 3-month PCS (Time 2; T2); whether predictors of PCS (within 14 days of injury, Time 1; T1) predict 3-month PCS, and how change in these predictors from T1 to T2 were associated with change in PCS status. Variables included demographic, injury-related, financial incentives, neuropsychological, and psychiatric disorder. Results: MTBI did not predict PCS. PCS was comparable (T1: mTBI: 40.3%, TC: 50.0%; T2: mTBI: 46.8%, TC: 48.3%). At T2, 38.6% were new cases of PCS; between 30.8% and 86.2% reported either a new or more frequent symptom. A pre-injury depressive or anxiety disorder (OR = 2.99, 95% CI [1.38, 6.45]), and acute posttraumatic stress (OR = 1.05, 95% CI [1.00, 1.00]) were early markers of PCS, regardless of mTBI. An interaction between time and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) suggested the relationship between the severity of PTSD symptoms and PCS strengthened over time (OR = 2.66, 95% CI [1.08, 6.55]). Pain was related to PCS. Females were more likely than males to have PCS. Conclusion: The data suggest the phenomenon of PCS in trauma patients does not show an association with mTBI.

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