4.6 Article

Sleepiness and fatigue following traumatic brain injury

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 598-605

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2012.02.010

关键词

Brain injury; Sleepiness; Fatigue; Sleep; Neurological disorders; Case-control study

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To compare individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to healthy controls (CTLs) on measures of sleepiness, fatigue, and sleep, and explore correlates of sleepiness and fatigue separately for each group. Methods: Participants were 22 adults with moderate/severe TBI (time since injury >= 1 year; mean = 53.0 +/- 37.1 months) and 22 matched healthy CTLs. They underwent one night of polysomnographic (PSG) recording of their sleep followed the next day by the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). They also completed a 14-day sleep diary, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), and the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI). Results: There were no significant group differences on measures of objective (MWT) or subjective (ESS) sleepiness, both groups being quite alert. However, TBI participants reported greater consequences of sleepiness on their general productivity (FOSQ), spent more time in bed at night, and napped more frequently and for a longer time during the day. Subjective fatigue was significantly higher in TBI participants on the general, physical, and mental fatigue MFI subscales. There were no between-group differences on any sleep parameters derived either from PSG or sleep diary. Conclusions: Fatigue appeared to be a more prominent symptom than sleepiness when assessed between 1 and 11 years after TBI. Participants with TBI used compensatory strategies such as increasing time spent in bed and daytime napping in this sample. Future research should document the time course of sleepiness and fatigue after TBI and investigate treatment options. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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