scholarly journals Clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation of the neurological status of children with mild brain injury in acute phase

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 36-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey A. Povzun ◽  
Lyudmila M. Shchugareva ◽  
Alexander S. Iova ◽  
Marina K. Kruchina ◽  
Maria A. Shulgina
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Acute Phase ◽  
Neurological Status ◽  
Diagnostic Efficiency ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Neurological Condition ◽  
Mild Brain Injury ◽  
Ultrasonographic Assessment

Background. The intracranial changes in children with mild traumatic brain injury in acute period are identified by a combination of clinical-neurological and ultrasonographic evaluations of the condition severity. Aim. The aim of the study was to assess the possibility of performing comprehensive clinical and ultrasonographic evaluations in for determining the severity of the neurological condition of children with mild traumatic brain injury in an acute phase. Materials and Methods. Clinical and ultrasonographic assessment of the severity of the neurological condition was performed on 256 patients with clinical criteria suggesting mild traumatic brain injury. Ultrasonography was used as the main neuroimaging. Results. We found that the diagnostic sensitivity of clinical and ultrasonographic examination for detecting traumatic structural intracranial changes in children with mild traumatic brain injury was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.98), diagnostic specificity was 97% (95% CI 0.96–0.98), and diagnostic efficiency was 94.9% (95% CI 0.918–0.971). Conclusions. A comprehensive clinical ultrasonographic approach can be effectively used to assess the severity of the neurological condition of children with mild traumatic brain injury in the acute phase.

Separate N‐acetyl aspartyl glutamate, N‐acetyl aspartate, aspartate, and glutamate quantification after pediatric mild traumatic brain injury in the acute phase

2020 ◽  
Vol 84 (6) ◽  
pp. 2918-2931
Author(s):  
Petr Menshchikov ◽  
Anna Ivantsova ◽  
Andrei Manzhurtsev ◽  
Maxim Ublinskiy ◽  
Alexey Yakovlev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Acute Phase

scholarly journals Neurometabolites Alteration in the Acute Phase of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI)

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 1167-1177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vigneswaran Veeramuthu ◽  
Pohchoo Seow ◽  
Vairavan Narayanan ◽  
Jeannie Hsiu Ding Wong ◽  
Li Kuo Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Acute Phase

scholarly journals The Acute Phase of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Is Characterized by a Distance-Dependent Neuronal Hypoactivity

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (22) ◽  
pp. 1881-1895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria P.A. Johnstone ◽  
Sandy R. Shultz ◽  
Edwin B. Yan ◽  
Terence J. O'Brien ◽  
Ramesh Rajan
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Acute Phase

scholarly journals Evaluation of Clinical Criteria for Performing Brain CT-Scan in Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury; A New Diagnostic Probe

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-277
Author(s):  
Roghieh Molaei-Langroudi ◽  
Ahmad Alizadeh ◽  
Ehsan Kazemnejad-Leili ◽  
Vahid Monsef-Kasmaie ◽  
Seyed-Younes Moshirian
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Brain Ct ◽  
Diagnostic Probe ◽  
Brain Ct Scan

GFAP and S100B in the acute phase of mild traumatic brain injury

Neurology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (18) ◽  
pp. 1428-1433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. Metting ◽  
N. Wilczak ◽  
L. A. Rodiger ◽  
J. M. Schaaf ◽  
J. van der Naalt
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Acute Phase

scholarly journals Interventions provided in the acute phase for mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Gravel ◽  
Antonio D’Angelo ◽  
Benoit Carrière ◽  
Louis Crevier ◽  
Miriam H Beauchamp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Acute Phase

scholarly journals A-10 Self-Reported Post-Concussive Symptom Levels as Predictors of Performance Validity in a Sample of Active Duty Service Members with a History of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 783-783
Author(s):  
J Trotta ◽  
L Hungerford ◽  
S Agtarap ◽  
M Ettenhofer
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Active Duty ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Atypical Symptoms ◽  
Mild Brain Injury ◽  
History Of ◽  
Separate Regression

Abstract Objective The study investigated the relationship between levels of symptom reporting and performance validity testing (PVT) in Active Duty Service Members (ADSM) with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Method A total of 70 ADSM with a history of mTBI completed the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI); the PTSD Check List for DSM-5 (PCL-5), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ8), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C); and a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation including the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). A multiple regression was conducted with all self-reported symptom questionnaires as predictors of PVT performance. To further explore this relationship, the four NSI subscales (affective, cognitive, vestibular, somatosensory) plus the mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptoms (mBIAS) subscore were entered into a separate regression analysis. Results The NSI was the only significant predictor of TOMM Trial 1 performance (TOMMT1; R2 = .272, F(6,58) = 3.606, p < .01; β = −.615, p > .01). When the four NSI subscales (affective, cognitive, vestibular, somatosensory) plus the mild Brain Injury Atypical Symptoms (mBIAS) subscore were entered into a separate regression analysis, only the somatosensory subscore emerged as a significant predictor of TOMMT1 (R2 = .208, F(5,63) = 3.317, p < .05; β = −.384, p > .05). Conclusions Results suggest that performance validity measures in ADSM with mTBI may at times be more strongly influenced by patients’ health concerns than by overt dissimulation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document