Ronald T. Seel

The prevalence and symptom rates of depression after traumatic brain injury: a comprehensive examination

Primary objective: Differing definitions of depression, limited sample sizes, and variability in methodologies have contributed to equivocal findings about the prevalence of depression among persons with traumatic brain injury. The present investigation used standardized diagnostic criteria and a large sample to identify the manifestations of depression after TBI. Methods and procedures: 722 outpatients with brain injury, referred for comprehensive assessment at a regional Level I trauma centre, were studied. Depressive symptoms were characterized utilizing standard DSM-IV criteria and the Neurobehavioural Functioning Inventory. Results: Forty-two per cent of patients with brain injury met the prerequisite number of symptoms for a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Fatigue (46%), frustration (41%), and poor concentration (38%) were the most commonly cited manifestations of depression. Conclusions: Many patients with brain injury are at great risk for developing depressive disorders. Future res...

Etiology and incidence of rehospitalization after traumatic brain injury: A multicenter analysis

OBJECTIVE To investigate incidence and etiology of rehospitalizations at 1, 2, and 3 years after traumatic brain injury. DESIGN Descriptive statistics were computed in a prospective study of etiology and incidence of rehospitalization at years 1, 2, and 3 postinjury. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi2 were used to identify factors relating to rehospitalization; factors included length of stay, admission and discharge functional status, payer source, medical complications, injury severity, and demographics. SETTING Four medical centers in the federally sponsored Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems. In each setting, the continuum of care includes emergency medical services, intensive and acute medical care, inpatient rehabilitation, and a spectrum of community rehabilitation services. PARTICIPANTS Six hundred sixty-five rehabilitation patients admitted to acute care within 24 hours of traumatic brain injury between 1989 and 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Annual incidence and etiology of rehospitalization. RESULTS The annual incidence of rehospitalization ranged from 20% to 22.5%. Approximately half the rehospitalizations were for elective reasons. The most common reason for rehospitalization was for orthopedic or reconstructive surgery, followed by infectious disorders and general health maintenance. After the first year, the incidence of readmissions for seizures and psychiatric difficulties increased substantially. ANOVA and chi2 analyses were performed on data from the first year postinjury. No statistically significant associations were noted between incidence and etiology of rehospitalization and: demographics; injury severity; payer source for rehabilitation; concurrent injuries; acute care and rehabilitation length of stays; discharge Functional Assessment Measure; and discharge residence (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS There is a relatively stable but high rate of rehospitalization for at least 3 years after injury. The costs of rehospitalization should be considered when evaluating the long-term consequences of injury.

Assessment Scales for Disorders of Consciousness: Evidence-Based Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Research

OBJECTIVES To conduct a systematic review of behavioral assessment scales for disorders of consciousness (DOC); provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical use based on their content validity, reliability, diagnostic validity, and ability to predict functional outcomes; and provide research recommendations on DOC scale development and validation. DATA SOURCES Articles published through March 31, 2009, using MEDLINE, CINAHL, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Biomedical Reference Collection, and PsycINFO. Thirteen primary terms that defined DOC were paired with 30 secondary terms that defined aspects of measurement. Scale names, abbreviations, and authors were also used as search terms. Task force members identified additional articles by using personal knowledge and examination of references in reviewed articles. STUDY SELECTION Primary criteria included the following: (1) provided reliability, diagnostic validity, and/or prognostic validity data; (2) examined a cohort, case control, or case series sample of persons with DOC who were age older than or equal to 18 years; and (3) assessed in an acute care or rehabilitation setting. Articles were excluded if peer review was not conducted, original data were not reported, or an English language article was not available. The initial search yielded 580 articles. After paired rater review of study abstracts, guideline development was based on 37 articles representing 13 DOC scales. DATA EXTRACTION Rater pairs classified studies addressing diagnostic and prognostic validity by using the American Academy of Neurology 4-tier level of evidence scheme, and reliability by using a task force-developed 3-tier evidence scheme. An independent quality review of ratings was conducted, and corrections were made. DATA SYNTHESIS The Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R), Sensory Stimulation Assessment Measure (SSAM), Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM), Western Neuro Sensory Stimulation Profile (WNSSP), Sensory Modality Assessment Technique (SMART), Disorders of Consciousness Scale (DOCS), and Coma/Near-Coma Scale (CNC) have acceptable standardized administration and scoring procedures. The CRS-R has excellent content validity and is the only scale to address all Aspen Workgroup criteria. The SMART, SSAM, WHIM, and WNSSP demonstrate good content validity, containing items that could distinguish persons who are in a vegetative state, are in a minimally conscious state (MCS), or have emerged from MCS. The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score (FOUR), WNSSP, CRS-R, Comprehensive Levels of Consciousness Scale (CLOCS), and Innsbruck Coma Scale (INNS) showed substantial evidence of internal consistency. The FOUR and the CRS-R showed substantial evidence of good interrater reliability. Evidence of diagnostic validity and prognostic validity in brain injury survivor samples had very high levels of potential bias because of methodologic issues such as lack of rater masking. CONCLUSIONS The CRS-R may be used to assess DOC with minor reservations, and the SMART, WNSSP, SSAM, WHIM, and DOCS may be used to assess DOC with moderate reservations. The CNC may be used to assess DOC with major reservations. The FOUR, INNS, Glasgow-Liege Coma Scale, Swedish Reaction Level Scale-1985, Loewenstein Communication Scale, and CLOCS are not recommended at this time for bedside behavioral assessment of DOC because of a lack of content validity, lack of standardization, and/or unproven reliability.

Nontraumatic spinal cord injury: incidence, epidemiology, and functional outcome.

OBJECTIVES To identify and compare the incidence, demographics, neurologic presentation, and functional outcome of individuals with nontraumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) to individuals with traumatic SCI. DESIGN A 5-year prospective study. SETTING Level I trauma center of a Regional SCI Model System. PATIENTS Two hundred twenty adult SCI admissions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Demographics, etiology, level and completeness of injury, Functional Independent Measure (FIM) scores. RESULTS Of SCI admissions, 39% were nontraumatic in etiology (spinal stenosis, 54%; tumor, 26%). Compared to subjects with traumatic SCI, those individuals with nontraumatic SCI were significantly (p < .01) older and were more likely married, female, and retired. Injury characteristics revealed significantly more paraplegia and incomplete SCI within the nontraumatic SCI group (p < .01). Both nontraumatic and traumatic SCI individuals had significant FIM changes from rehabilitation admission to discharge (p < .01). Those with tetraplegia-incomplete nontraumatic SCI had significantly higher admission motor FIM scores and shorter rehabilitation length of stay than in the traumatic group (p < .05). Paraplegic-complete and paraplegic-incomplete nontraumatic SCI subjects had lower discharge motor FIM scores, FIM change, and FIM efficiency than those with traumatic SCI. Similar discharge-to-home rates were noted in both nontraumatic and traumatic SCI groups. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that individuals with nontraumatic SCI represent a significant proportion of SCI rehabilitation admissions and, although differing from those with traumatic SCI in demographic and injury patterns, can achieve similar functional outcomes.

Nontraumatic vs. traumatic spinal cord injury: a rehabilitation outcome comparison.

McKinley WO, Seel RT, Gadi RK, Tewksbury MA: Nontraumatic vs. traumatic spinal cord injury: a rehabilitation outcome comparison. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:693–699. Objective: Nontraumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) represents a significant proportion of individuals admitted for SCI rehabilitation; however, there is limited literature regarding their outcomes. As our society continues to age and nontraumatic injuries present with greater frequency, further studies in this area will become increasingly relevant. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with nontraumatic SCI with those with traumatic SCI after inpatient rehabilitation. Design: A longitudinal study with matched block design was used comparing 86 patients with nontraumatic SCI admitted to a SCI rehabilitation unit and 86 patients with traumatic SCI admitted to regional model SCI centers, controlling for age, neurologic level of injury, and American Spinal Injury Association impairment classification. Main outcome measures included acute and rehabilitation hospital length of stay, FIMTM scores, FIM change, FIM efficiency, rehabilitation charges, and discharge-to-home rates. Results: Results indicate that when compared with traumatic SCI, patients with nontraumatic SCI had a significantly (P < 0.01) shorter rehabilitation length of stay (22.38 vs. 41.35 days) and lower discharge FIM scores (57.3 vs. 65.6), FIM change (18.6 vs. 31.0), and rehabilitation charges (

Clinical considerations for the diagnosis of major depression after moderate to severe TBI.

25,050 vs.

Utility of post-traumatic amnesia in predicting 1-year productivity following traumatic brain injury: comparison of the Russell and Mississippi PTA classification intervals

64,570). No statistical differences were found in acute care length of stay, admission FIM scores, FIM efficiency, and community discharge rates. Conclusions: The findings indicate that patients with nontraumatic SCI can achieve rates of functional gains and community discharge comparable with traumatic SCI. Whereas patients with traumatic SCI achieved greater overall functional improvement, patients with nontraumatic SCI had shorter rehabilitation length of stay and lower rehabilitation charges. These findings have important implications for the interdisciplinary rehabilitation process in the overall management and outcome of individuals with nontraumatic SCI.

Return to driving within 5 years of moderate-severe traumatic brain injury

Major depression (MD) is the most common psychiatric disorder after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Yet, diagnosing MD is often challenging because of cognitive, emotional, and somatic symptoms that overlap with TBI and other psychiatric disorders. Best current evidence suggests that depressed mood is characterized more by irritability, anger, and aggression than by sadness and tearfulness in persons with TBI. Rumination, self-criticism, and guilt may best differentiate depressed persons from nondepressed persons. Anxiety, aggression, sleep problems, alcohol use, lower-income levels, and poor social functioning appear to be primary associated factors to MD. Objective levels of injury severity, impairment, and functioning do not appear to be related to developing MD. The presence of “organic” TBI sequelae that overlap with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Version IV MD criteria does not appear to lead to false-positive MD diagnoses, and anosognosia does not appear to lead to false-negative MD diagnoses. Only the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 and Neurobehavioral Functioning Inventory–Depression demonstrated evidence of acceptably ruling out MD in persons with TBI; the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 had the best ability to rule in the presence of MD following TBI. Apathy, anxiety, dysregulation, and emotional lability require careful clinical consideration when making a differential diagnosis of MD in persons with TBI. Lastly, recommendations are provided on how clinicians can improve diagnostic accuracy and what future research is required to improve our understanding of MD in persons with TBI.

Age-related differences in length of stays, hospitalization costs, and outcomes for an injury-matched sample of adults with paraplegia.

Background Duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) correlates with global outcomes and functional disability. Russell proposed the use of PTA duration intervals as an index for classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity. Alternative duration-based schemata have been recently proposed as better predictors of outcome to the commonly cited Russell intervals. Objective Validate a TBI severity classification model (Mississippi intervals) of PTA duration anchored to late productivity outcome, and compare sensitivity against the Russell intervals. Methods Prospective observational data on TBI Model System participants (n=3846) with known or imputed PTA duration during acute hospitalisation. Productivity status at 1-year postinjury was used to compare predicted outcomes using the Mississippi and Russell classification intervals. Logistic regression model-generated curves were used to compare the performance of the classification intervals by assessing the area under the curve (AUC); the highest AUC represented the best-performing model. Results All severity variables evaluated were individually associated with return to productivity at 1 year (RTP1). Age was significantly associated with RTP1; however, younger patients had a different association than older patients. After adjustment for individually significant variables, the odds of RTP1 decrease by 14% with every additional week of PTA duration (95% CI 12% to 17%; p<0.0001). The AUC for the Russell intervals was significantly smaller than the Mississippi intervals. Conclusions PTA duration is an important predictor of late productivity outcome after TBI. The Mississippi PTA interval classification model is a valid predictor of productivity at 1 year postinjury and provides a more sensitive categorisation of PTA values than the Russell intervals.

Improving Measurement Methods in Rehabilitation: Core Concepts and Recommendations for Scale Development

Primary objective: To examine return to driving and variables associated with that activity in a longitudinal database. Research design: Retrospective analysis of a large, national database. Methods and procedures: The sample was comprised of people with predominantly moderate–severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) enrolled in the TBI Model System national database at 16 centres and followed at 1 (n = 5942), 2 (n = 4628) and 5 (n = 2324) years after injury. Main outcomes and results: Respondents were classified as driving or not driving at each follow-up interval. Five years after injury, half the sample had returned to driving. Those with less severe injuries were quicker to return to driving, but, by 5 years, severity was not a factor. Those who were driving expressed a higher life satisfaction. Functional status at rehabilitation discharge, age at injury, race, pre-injury residence, pre-injury employment status and education level were associated with the odds of a person driving. Conclusions: Half of those with a moderate–severe TBI return to driving within 5 years and most of those within 1 year of injury. Driving is associated with increased life satisfaction. There are multiple factors that contribute to return to driving that do not relate to actual driving ability.