Retrospective Identification and Characterization of Traumatic Brain Injury-Recommendations from the 2024 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Traumatic Brain Injury Classification and Nomenclature Initiative Retrospective Classification Working Group.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
John D Corrigan, Michael L Alosco, Joukje van der Naalt, Rachel Sayko Adams, Breton M Asken, Sidney Hinds, Anthony H Lequerica, Virginia Newcombe, Olli Tenovuo, Eve Valera, Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, Adele Doperalski, Hibah O Awwad, Kristen Dams-O'Connor, Andrew I R Mass, Michael A McCrea, Nsini Umoh, Geoffrey T Manley
{"title":"Retrospective Identification and Characterization of Traumatic Brain Injury-Recommendations from the 2024 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Traumatic Brain Injury Classification and Nomenclature Initiative Retrospective Classification Working Group.","authors":"John D Corrigan, Michael L Alosco, Joukje van der Naalt, Rachel Sayko Adams, Breton M Asken, Sidney Hinds, Anthony H Lequerica, Virginia Newcombe, Olli Tenovuo, Eve Valera, Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, Adele Doperalski, Hibah O Awwad, Kristen Dams-O'Connor, Andrew I R Mass, Michael A McCrea, Nsini Umoh, Geoffrey T Manley","doi":"10.1089/neu.2024.0590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) convened experts in traumatic brain injury (TBI) research, policy, clinical practice and people with lived experience to propose a system of injury classification less susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation inherent in the current use of \"mild\", \"moderate\" and \"severe\". One of six working groups addressed Retrospective Classification of TBI. The Working Group consisted of 14 experts in brain injury research representing a breadth of professional disciplines. Initial conclusions based on expert opinion were vetted and revised based on public input at the January 2024 NINDS TBI Classification and Nomenclature Workshop. The Working Group examined five types of methodologies for identifying past TBIs (self/proxy-report, medical record extraction, imaging, fluid-based biomarkers, and performance-based tests). They concluded that self/proxy-report is essential for clinical, research and surveillance applications and that clinicians and researchers should employ elicitation protocols that have been studied and found valid. Medical record extraction was also identified as an invaluable tool for identification of past history of medically attended TBIs; however, there is a need to standardize the case definition employed and procedures used. The use of imaging methods, fluid-based biomarkers, and performance-based assessments in isolation lacked sufficient evidence of both sensitivity and specificity in detecting past histories of TBI to be recommended for this use at this time. The Working Group also evaluated identification of repetitive head impacts (RHI), finding no evidence of a common definition of RHI, a requisite initial step for the development and validation of standardized instruments.</p>","PeriodicalId":16512,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurotrauma","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurotrauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2024.0590","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) convened experts in traumatic brain injury (TBI) research, policy, clinical practice and people with lived experience to propose a system of injury classification less susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation inherent in the current use of "mild", "moderate" and "severe". One of six working groups addressed Retrospective Classification of TBI. The Working Group consisted of 14 experts in brain injury research representing a breadth of professional disciplines. Initial conclusions based on expert opinion were vetted and revised based on public input at the January 2024 NINDS TBI Classification and Nomenclature Workshop. The Working Group examined five types of methodologies for identifying past TBIs (self/proxy-report, medical record extraction, imaging, fluid-based biomarkers, and performance-based tests). They concluded that self/proxy-report is essential for clinical, research and surveillance applications and that clinicians and researchers should employ elicitation protocols that have been studied and found valid. Medical record extraction was also identified as an invaluable tool for identification of past history of medically attended TBIs; however, there is a need to standardize the case definition employed and procedures used. The use of imaging methods, fluid-based biomarkers, and performance-based assessments in isolation lacked sufficient evidence of both sensitivity and specificity in detecting past histories of TBI to be recommended for this use at this time. The Working Group also evaluated identification of repetitive head impacts (RHI), finding no evidence of a common definition of RHI, a requisite initial step for the development and validation of standardized instruments.

外伤性脑损伤的回顾性鉴定和特征-来自2024年国家神经疾病和中风研究所外伤性脑损伤分类和命名倡议回顾性分类工作组的建议。
国家神经疾病和中风研究所(NINDS)召集了创伤性脑损伤(TBI)研究、政策、临床实践方面的专家和有实际经验的人,提出了一种损伤分类系统,该系统不易受目前使用“轻度”、“中度”和“严重”所固有的误解和误读的影响。六个工作组中的一个讨论了TBI的回顾性分类。工作组由14名脑损伤研究专家组成,他们代表了广泛的专业学科。在2024年1月的NINDS TBI分类和命名研讨会上,对基于专家意见的初步结论进行了审查,并根据公众意见进行了修订。工作组审查了用于确定过去脑外伤的五种方法(自我/代理报告、病历提取、成像、基于液体的生物标志物和基于性能的测试)。他们的结论是,自我/代理报告对于临床、研究和监测应用至关重要,临床医生和研究人员应采用经过研究并发现有效的启发方案。医疗记录提取也被认为是一种宝贵的工具,可用于查明过去接受医疗治疗的创伤性脑损伤病史;但是,有必要对所使用的案例定义和程序进行标准化。单独使用成像方法、基于液体的生物标志物和基于性能的评估缺乏足够的证据表明,在检测过去的TBI病史时,敏感性和特异性都不适合目前推荐的使用方法。工作组还评估了重复性头部撞击(RHI)的识别,没有发现RHI的共同定义的证据,这是开发和验证标准化仪器的必要的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurotrauma
Journal of neurotrauma 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
233
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Neurotrauma is the flagship, peer-reviewed publication for reporting on the latest advances in both the clinical and laboratory investigation of traumatic brain and spinal cord injury. The Journal focuses on the basic pathobiology of injury to the central nervous system, while considering preclinical and clinical trials targeted at improving both the early management and long-term care and recovery of traumatically injured patients. This is the essential journal publishing cutting-edge basic and translational research in traumatically injured human and animal studies, with emphasis on neurodegenerative disease research linked to CNS trauma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信