4.6 Article

Outcome 3 to 5 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00287-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD 33677] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS19643] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate neuropsychologic, emotional, and functional status and quality of life (QOL) 3 to 5 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Design: Observational cohort. Setting: Level I trauma center. Participants: Consecutive adult admissions with TBI involving intracranial abnormalities, prospectively followed up for 3 to 5 years, with 80% follow-up. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Neuropsychologic functioning (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, California Verbal Learning Test), emotional status (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Brief Symptom Inventory), functional status (Functional Status Examination, Glasgow Outcome Scale, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, employment), and perceived QOL. Results: Significant functional limitations were observed in all areas. Recovery to preinjury levels ranged from 65% of cases in personal care to approximately 40% in cognitive competency, major activity, and leisure and recreation. Brain injury severity, measured by the modified Abbreviated Injury Scale, related to functional status and neuropsychologic functioning, but not to emotional or QOL measures. Length of impaired consciousness appeared to contribute to outcome more than did anatomic lesions. Conclusions: The results provide representative estimates of long-term morbidity in patients with TBI involving intracranial lesions. The magnitude of morbidity was high. Although direct costs of TBI have received the most attention, the long-term consequences and their cost implications are much larger, unfold over time, and are home by the survivors, their families, and the public subsidy system.

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