Introduction The objective of this study was to determine the utility of the Community Balance and Mobility scale (CB&M) among service members presenting with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), to compare the results against well-established balance assessments, and to find a new military-specific CB&M cut score to help differentiate those with and without mTBI. Materials and Methods The setting was a 4-week, intensive-outpatient, interdisciplinary program for active duty service members with mTBI. This was a nonrandomized, cross-sectional design that compared multiple measures between two groups: active duty service members with (n = 45) and without (n = 45) mTBI. The assessments, including the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, gait speed (comfortable and fast), the Functional Gait Assessment, and the CB&M, were provided to both sample groups. Results The mTBI group performed significantly worse (P ≤ 0.01) across all measures. A higher cut score for the CB&M of 81.5 is suggested. The CB&M demonstrated the best sensitivity (78%) and specificity (91%) ratio, as well as the largest effect size and area under the curve(0.92). Conclusion All objective measures distinguish participants with mTBI from controls, ranging from fair to excellent. The recommended CB&M cut score of 81.5 allows for good variance, standard deviation, and reduced risk of ceiling or floor effects. Further examination of the recommended CB&M cut score is warranted for use in the mTBI civilian populations.

Objective: Challenges associated with case ascertainment of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) sustained during the Afghanistan/Iraq military operations have been widespread. This study was designed to examine how the prevalence and severity of TBI among military members who served during the conflicts were impacted when a more precise classification of TBI diagnosis codes was compared with the Department of Defense Standard Surveillance Case-Definition (DoD-Case-Definition). Setting: Identification of TBI diagnoses in the Department of Defense's Military Health System from October 7, 2001, until December 31, 2019. Participants: Military members with a TBI diagnosis on an encounter record during the study window. Design: Descriptive observational study to evaluate the prevalence and severity of TBI with regard to each code set (ie, the DoD-Case-Definition and the more precise set of TBI diagnosis codes). The frequencies of index TBI severity were compared over time and further evaluated against policy changes. Main Measures: The more precise TBI diagnosis code set excludes the following: (1) DoD-only extender codes, which are not used in other healthcare settings; and (2) nonprecise TBI codes, which include injuries that do not necessarily meet TBI diagnostic criteria. Results: When comparing the 2 TBI classifications, the DoD-Case-Definition captured a higher prevalence of TBIs; 38.5% were classified by the DoD-Case-Definition only (>164 000 military members). 73% of those identified by the DoD-Case-Definition only were diagnosed with nonprecise TBI codes only, with questionable specificity as to whether a TBI occurred. Conclusion: We encourage the field to reflect on decisions made pertaining to TBI case ascertainment during the height of the conflicts. Efforts focused on achieving consensus regarding TBI case ascertainment are recommended. Doing so will allow the field to be better prepared for future conflicts, and improve surveillance, screening, and diagnosis in noncombat settings, as well as our ability to understand the long-term effects of TBI.