将创伤性脑病综合征的共识标准应用于 20 世纪拳击手的案例研究中

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Grant L Iverson, Andrew J Gardner, Rudolph J. Castellani, A. Kissinger-Knox
{"title":"将创伤性脑病综合征的共识标准应用于 20 世纪拳击手的案例研究中","authors":"Grant L Iverson, Andrew J Gardner, Rudolph J. Castellani, A. Kissinger-Knox","doi":"10.1089/neur.2023.0134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are no validated diagnostic criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES). During the early and middle 20th century, TES was described as a clinical condition that was experienced by some high-exposure boxers—and it was believed to reflect chronic traumatic brain injury. Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of TES were published in 2021. We applied the consensus criteria for TES retrospectively to cases of chronic brain damage in boxers described in articles published in the 20th century that were obtained from narrative and systematic reviews. The sample included 157 boxers identified in 21 articles published between 1929 and 1999. Two authors reviewed each case description and coded the criteria for TES. For the core clinical features, cognitive impairment was noted in 63.1%, and in 28.7% of cases the person's cognitive functioning appeared to be broadly normal. Neurobehavioral dysregulation was present in 25.5%. One third (34.4%) were identified as progressive, 30.6% were not progressive, and the course could not be clearly determined in 35.0%. In total, 29.9% met the TES consensus criteria, 28.0% did not, and 42.0% had insufficient information to make a diagnostic determination. TES, in the 20th century, was described as a neurological condition, not a psychiatric disorder—and this supports the decision of the 2021 consensus group to remove primary and secondary psychiatric diagnoses from being a core diagnostic feature. Future research is needed to determine whether, or the extent to which, cognitive impairment or neurobehavioral dysregulation described as characterizing TES are associated with chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathological change.","PeriodicalId":74300,"journal":{"name":"Neurotrauma reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying the Consensus Criteria for Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome Retrospectively to Case Studies of Boxers from the 20th Century\",\"authors\":\"Grant L Iverson, Andrew J Gardner, Rudolph J. Castellani, A. Kissinger-Knox\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/neur.2023.0134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are no validated diagnostic criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES). During the early and middle 20th century, TES was described as a clinical condition that was experienced by some high-exposure boxers—and it was believed to reflect chronic traumatic brain injury. Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of TES were published in 2021. We applied the consensus criteria for TES retrospectively to cases of chronic brain damage in boxers described in articles published in the 20th century that were obtained from narrative and systematic reviews. The sample included 157 boxers identified in 21 articles published between 1929 and 1999. Two authors reviewed each case description and coded the criteria for TES. For the core clinical features, cognitive impairment was noted in 63.1%, and in 28.7% of cases the person's cognitive functioning appeared to be broadly normal. Neurobehavioral dysregulation was present in 25.5%. One third (34.4%) were identified as progressive, 30.6% were not progressive, and the course could not be clearly determined in 35.0%. In total, 29.9% met the TES consensus criteria, 28.0% did not, and 42.0% had insufficient information to make a diagnostic determination. TES, in the 20th century, was described as a neurological condition, not a psychiatric disorder—and this supports the decision of the 2021 consensus group to remove primary and secondary psychiatric diagnoses from being a core diagnostic feature. Future research is needed to determine whether, or the extent to which, cognitive impairment or neurobehavioral dysregulation described as characterizing TES are associated with chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathological change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurotrauma reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurotrauma reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2023.0134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurotrauma reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2023.0134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

创伤性脑病综合征(TES)目前尚无有效的诊断标准。在 20 世纪早期和中期,创伤性脑病被描述为一些高暴露拳击手的一种临床症状--人们认为它反映了慢性创伤性脑损伤。2021 年发布了 TES 诊断共识标准。我们对 20 世纪发表的文章中描述的拳击手慢性脑损伤病例应用了 TES 的共识标准,这些文章是从叙事性和系统性综述中获得的。样本包括 1929 年至 1999 年间发表的 21 篇文章中确定的 157 名拳击手。两位作者审阅了每篇病例描述,并对 TES 标准进行了编码。就核心临床特征而言,63.1%的病例存在认知障碍,28.7%的病例认知功能大致正常。25.5%的患者存在神经行为失调。三分之一(34.4%)的患者被确定为进行性疾病,30.6%为非进行性疾病,35.0%的患者病程无法明确确定。总共有 29.9% 符合 TES 共识标准,28.0% 不符合,42.0% 信息不足,无法做出诊断。在 20 世纪,TES 被描述为一种神经系统疾病,而非精神疾病--这也支持了 2021 年共识小组的决定,即取消将原发性和继发性精神疾病诊断作为核心诊断特征。未来需要进行研究,以确定被描述为 TES 特征的认知障碍或神经行为失调是否或在多大程度上与慢性创伤性脑病的神经病理变化有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Applying the Consensus Criteria for Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome Retrospectively to Case Studies of Boxers from the 20th Century
There are no validated diagnostic criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES). During the early and middle 20th century, TES was described as a clinical condition that was experienced by some high-exposure boxers—and it was believed to reflect chronic traumatic brain injury. Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of TES were published in 2021. We applied the consensus criteria for TES retrospectively to cases of chronic brain damage in boxers described in articles published in the 20th century that were obtained from narrative and systematic reviews. The sample included 157 boxers identified in 21 articles published between 1929 and 1999. Two authors reviewed each case description and coded the criteria for TES. For the core clinical features, cognitive impairment was noted in 63.1%, and in 28.7% of cases the person's cognitive functioning appeared to be broadly normal. Neurobehavioral dysregulation was present in 25.5%. One third (34.4%) were identified as progressive, 30.6% were not progressive, and the course could not be clearly determined in 35.0%. In total, 29.9% met the TES consensus criteria, 28.0% did not, and 42.0% had insufficient information to make a diagnostic determination. TES, in the 20th century, was described as a neurological condition, not a psychiatric disorder—and this supports the decision of the 2021 consensus group to remove primary and secondary psychiatric diagnoses from being a core diagnostic feature. Future research is needed to determine whether, or the extent to which, cognitive impairment or neurobehavioral dysregulation described as characterizing TES are associated with chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathological change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信