4.7 Article

Handicap after acute whiplash injury - A 1-year prospective study of risk factors

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 56, 期 12, 页码 1637-1643

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.56.12.1637

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Exposure to a whiplash injury implies a risk for development of chronic disability and handicap, with reported frequencies ranging from 0% to 50% in follow-up studies. The exact risk for development of chronic whiplash syndrome is not known. Objective: To prospectively determine the sensitivity and specificity of five possible predictors for handicap following a whiplash injury. Methods: In a 1-year prospective study of persons with acute whiplash injury (n = 141) and control subjects who had acute ankle distortion (n = 40), pain intensity, number of nonpainful neurologic complaints, cervical mobility, workload during extension and flexion of the neck, and results of psychometric assessment were recorded. The consecutively sampled injured persons were assessed with structured and semistructured questionnaires, and underwent neurologic examination after 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. After 3 to 4 years, participants with whiplash injury were questioned about legal issues. Results: After 1 year, 11 (7.8%) persons with whiplash injury had not returned to usual level of activity or work. The best single estimator of handicap was the cervical range-of-motion test, which had a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 91% (p < 0.01, Cox regression analysis). Accuracy and specificity increased to 94% and 99% when combined with pain intensity and other complaints. This increase was gained at the expense of a reduced sensitivity. Initiation of lawsuit within first month after injury did not influence recovery. Conclusion: The cervical range-of-motion test has a high sensitivity in prediction of handicap after acute whiplash injury. The value of cervical range-of-motion test is further improved by additional recording of symptoms and pain intensity.

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

4.7
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