4.6 Editorial Material

Common Data Elements for Research on Traumatic Brain Injury and Psychological Health: Current Status and Future Development

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.031

关键词

Brain injuries; Rehabilitation; Research; Stress disorders, post-traumatic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center jointly supported an effort to develop common data elements (CDEs, ie, consensus-based content domains of importance and recommended ways to measure them) for research on traumatic brain injury and psychological health. The authors served as participants in this effort as well as editors of the resulting articles. This article describes the current status of this multiagency endeavor, the obstacles encountered, and possible directions for future development. Challenges that occurred within the working groups that developed the CDE recommendations and similarities and differences among the articles that describe those recommendations were reviewed. Across all of the working groups, there were challenges in striking a balance between specificity in recommendations to researchers and the need to tailor the selection of variables to specific study aims. The domains addressed by the different working groups varied in the research available to guide the selection of important content areas to be measured and the specific tools for measuring them. The working groups also addressed this challenge in somewhat different ways. The CDE effort must enhance consensus among researchers with similar interests while not stifling innovation and scientific rigor. This will require regular updating of the recommendations and may benefit from more standardized criteria for the selection of important content areas and measurement tools across domains.

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