Center has been investigating the nature, causes, predictors, and treatment of functional disability after minor traumatic brain injury (TBI). This article clarifies distinctions among minor head injury, mild traumatic brain injury, postconcussion syndrome, and posttraumatic stress disorder; identifies methodological and information-processing issues in minor TBI; describes four stages of clinical research related to minor TBI; and presents a neuropsychological model of functional disability after minor TBI, with implications for assessment and treatment.

The assessment of patient outcomes in clinical trials of new therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease (AD) continues to evolve. In addition to assessing drugs for symptomatic relief, an increasing number of trials are focusing on potential disease-modifying agents. Moreover, participants with AD are being studied earlier in their course of disease. As a result, the limitations of current outcome measures have become more apparent, as has the need for better instruments. In recognition of the need to review and possibly revise current assessment measures, the Alzheimer's Association, in cooperation with industry leaders and academic investigators, convened a Research Roundtable meeting devoted to scales as outcome measures for AD clinical trials. The meeting included a discussion of methodological issues in the use of scales in AD clinical trials, including cross-cultural issues. Specific topics related to the use of cognitive, functional, global, and neuropsychiatric scales were also presented. Speakers also addressed academic and industry initiatives for pooling data from untreated and placebo-treated patients in clinical trials. A number of regulatory topics were also discussed with agency representatives. Panel discussions highlighted areas of controversy, in an effort to gain consensus on various topics.

No abstract

Clinical trial participants often require additional instruction to prevent idiosyncratic interpretations regarding completion of patient-reported outcomes. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership developed a training system with specific, standardized guidance regarding daily average pain intensity ratings. A 3-week exploratory study among participants with low-back pain, osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy was conducted, randomly assigning participants to 1 of 3 groups: training with human pain assessment (T+); training with automated pain assessment (T); or no training with automated pain assessment (C). Although most measures of validity and reliability did not reveal significant differences between groups, some benefit was observed in discriminant validity, amount of missing data, and ranking order of least, worst, and average pain intensity ratings for participants in Group T+ compared with the other groups. Prediction of greater reliability in average pain intensity ratings in Group T+ compared with the other groups was not supported, which might indicate that training produces ratings that reflect the reality of temporal pain fluctuations. Results of this novel study suggest the need to test the training system in a prospective analgesic treatment trial.