Commentary and perspectives on R.M. Allen's “The test performance of the brain injured”

Alfano, Mark S.; Satz, Paul

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(200007)56:7<975::aid-jclp13>3.0.co;2-z

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This would indicate that the general effects of injury were minimal. This is in contrast to previous studies which have found poorer performance in orthopaedic patients compared to uninjured participants (Alfano & Satz, 2000, Freeman et al, 2001Kewman et al, 1991). However, in these studies, the orthopaedic groups were not differentiated.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…However, few empirical studies have tried to differentiate the general effects of injury on the cognitive functioning of people with mTBI from the specific effects of mTBI. Of those studies that have included both noninjured and orthopaedic control groups, some have found no effect of injury on neuropsychological outcome (Asarnow et al, 1995;Bijur, Haslum, & Golding, 1990;Watt, & O'Carroll, 1999), while others have found that orthopaedic patients were impaired compared to noninjured participants on tasks of attention, memory (Alfano & Satz, 2000;Kewman, Valshampayan, Zeid & Han, 1991) and reading ability (Freeman et al, 2001). Given the paucity of studies that include both orthopaedic and noninjured participants, and the conflicting results of those that have, one aim of this study was to compare the cognitive performance of people with mTBI or differentiated orthopaedic injuries, to that of people without injuries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of Direct and Indirect Injury Groups

Monte

Geffen

2005

Brain Impairment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims were to investigate the general and specific effects of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), and if people with orthopaedic injuries who had sustained their injuries through exposure to acceleration/deceleration force could have sustained a brain injury. The Rapid Screen of Concussion and Digit Symbol Substitution Test were given to patients with mTBI (89 male, 23 female), and patients with orthopaedic injuries that did (27 male, 5 female) or did not (27 male, 15 female) involve deceleration forces within 24 hours of injury. A group of uninjured people (31 male, 12 female) were also tested. Compared to all other groups, patients with mTBI recalled fewer words and correctly answered fewer orientation questions. Patients with either mTBI or deceleration orthopaedic injuries showed slower speed of information processing than patients with nondeceleration orthopaedic injuries or participants without injury. Nondeceleration patients and uninjured participants did not differ. These results suggest that there are both general injury effects and specific mTBI effects on efficiency of cognitive functioning. The results also highlight the probability that patients with a diagnosis of orthopaedic injury who were exposed to acceleration/deceleration forces may have suffered a mild brain injury as well.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of Direct and Indirect Injury Groups

Monte

Geffen

2005

Brain Impairment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In answer to this, some studies have recruited orthopaedic or trauma controls [12,[39][40][41] because they are thought to be more demographically and psychosocially comparable to people who sustain a TBI. Others have used both CC and OCs in order to examine the relative contribution of brain-vs general-injury effects to outcome [4,15,17,18,42]. However, few studies have explicitly compared these two control groups and those that have have only done so using a limited number of variables, leaving unanswered questions relating to their differences; information that is essential to weighing up the relative advantages of each type of control group (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community versus orthopaedic controls in traumatic brain injury research: How comparable are they?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alfano and Satz [26] and Satz et al [27] have proposed a study design for use with head‐injured patients, which is validated in part by this study. The design advocates comparing patients with brain injury with 2 control groups similar to those used in this study (ie, a community‐dwelling healthy control group and a non–brain‐injury group of individuals with a specific illness, such as patients hospitalized for orthopedic injury).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pervasive Cognitive Impairment in Acute Rehabilitation Inpatients Without Brain Injury

Woods¹,

Mark²,

Pitts³

et al. 2011

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To establish feasibility for the hypothesis that patients in acute rehabilitation who are hospitalized for disorders not known to involve cerebral injury can have significant cognitive impairment. Design A comparison of performances on neuropsychological tests between 2 samples of subjects: inpatients in an acute rehabilitation hospital without known cerebral disease and normal community-dwelling persons. Setting Acute inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Patients and Participants Nineteen hospitalized patients without delirium who were screened for pre-existing cerebral and psychiatric illness, dementia, and dependency in basic self-care skills before hospitalization. Eighteen community-dwelling persons who were not different in terms of age and education served as the control group. Methods Participants completed 10 commonly used neuropsychological tests of executive, language, and memory functions. Data were analyzed by using multivariate analysis of variance. Main Outcome Measurements Raw scores on the 10 neuropsychological tests. Results Hospitalized patients performed significantly worse on 9 of 10 tests than community-dwelling participants. Older hospitalized participants had significantly greater cognitive impairment than younger hospitalized participants, which suggested increased susceptibility to effects of hospitalization on cognition. Conclusions Patients hospitalized without brain injury, and especially elderly patients, should be carefully monitored for cognitive deficits that may affect posthospitalization quality of living. Further research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits in such patients persist after discharge and affect functional independence, and to identify mechanisms for the deficits. Furthermore, the use of hospitalized participants without brain injury as control subjects in neuropsychological studies of brain injury should be balanced with an additional comparison group of matched, neurologically healthy, normal subjects who live in the community to control for cognitive impairments that are associated with acute hospitalization.

show abstract

Commentary and perspectives on R.M. Allen's “The test performance of the brain injured”

Cited by 9 publications

References 81 publications

Effects of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of Direct and Indirect Injury Groups

Effects of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of Direct and Indirect Injury Groups

Community versus orthopaedic controls in traumatic brain injury research: How comparable are they?

Pervasive Cognitive Impairment in Acute Rehabilitation Inpatients Without Brain Injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About