2013
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2013.793398
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: The current findings suggest that an orthopaedic injury control group does not have any clear advantages over a carefully recruited community control group.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
31
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
3
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the current sample comprised 162 people who had a TBI ( N mild = 133, N moderate = 15, N severe = 14) and 107 controls ( N healthy = 60, N orthopaedic = 47). The healthy and orthopaedic controls did not differ demographically (age: t (105) = −.488, p = .626; education: t (103) = .432, p = .667; proportion of males and females: X 2 (1) = 3.324, p = .068) or in terms of reaction times (compatible reaction time: t (101) = −.107, p = .915; incompatible reaction time: t (101) = −.526, p = .600) or fixel findings (see Supplementary figures); thus, all analyses were completed using a combined control group (Mathias, Dennington, Bowden, & Bigler, ; Wallace et al, ). The moderate and severe TBI groups were additionally combined for the subgroup analyses because they were too small to examine separately ( N moderate–severe = 29).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Therefore, the current sample comprised 162 people who had a TBI ( N mild = 133, N moderate = 15, N severe = 14) and 107 controls ( N healthy = 60, N orthopaedic = 47). The healthy and orthopaedic controls did not differ demographically (age: t (105) = −.488, p = .626; education: t (103) = .432, p = .667; proportion of males and females: X 2 (1) = 3.324, p = .068) or in terms of reaction times (compatible reaction time: t (101) = −.107, p = .915; incompatible reaction time: t (101) = −.526, p = .600) or fixel findings (see Supplementary figures); thus, all analyses were completed using a combined control group (Mathias, Dennington, Bowden, & Bigler, ; Wallace et al, ). The moderate and severe TBI groups were additionally combined for the subgroup analyses because they were too small to examine separately ( N moderate–severe = 29).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Finally, the current analyses did not include typically developing children as a control group even though they were recruited in the study. However, the OI constitute an appropriate comparison group and is even thought to provide more optimal control over general‐injury effects such as fatigue, stress, and pain (Mathias et al, ; McKinlay et al, ; Yeates, ). Additionally, previous work on the current cohort indicates that the two control groups may be more similar than expected as they had comparable demographic, developmental, cognitive and family functioning profiles (Beauchamp et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Orthopedic injured (OI) only groups have been a standard control group in many TBI studies as they are considered to share many of the same injury-related experiences including hospitalizations, pain and/or other medication use, and injury-related stress [46, 59]. For these reasons, we recruited an orthopedic injured (OI) only control that consisted of 59 (47 male, 12 female) Service Members identified through the Orthopedic Clinic at the same MTF.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are a number of possible methodological (i.e., group analyses, sensitivity of gross volumetric measurements, different analysis tools) and even clinical (i.e., subtleness of the injury, unique spatial distributions of injury) reasons for the lack of reproducible findings. However, the increased sensitivity of shape analyses for detecting subtle differences in surfaces of subcortical structures as applied to other neurological disorders [35, 46, 70] may extend or improve the detection of differences between groups in volumetric studies of mTBI. Ultimately, these analyses may potentially prove more useful in detecting injury, predicting outcomes, evaluating long term structural change and plasticity, and/or evaluating therapeutic effects of interventions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%