Dataset Information

Questionnaires vs Interviews for the Assessment of Global Functional Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point.

Objective

To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury.

Exposures

Traumatic brain injury of all severities.

Main outcomes and measures

Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms.

Results

Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews.

SUBMITTER: Horton L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586906 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The pathological cascade of tissue damage in mild traumatic brain injury is set forth by a perturbation in ionic homeostasis. However, whether this class of injury can be detected in vivo and serve as a surrogate marker of clinical outcome is unknown. We employ sodium MRI to test the hypotheses that regional and global total sodium concentrations: (i) are higher in patients than in controls and (ii) correlate with clinical presentation and neuropsychological function. Given the novelty of sodium imaging in traumatic brain injury, effect sizes from (i), and correlation types and strength from (ii), were compared to those obtained using standard diffusion imaging metrics. Twenty-seven patients (20 female, age 35.9 ± 12.2 years) within 2 months after injury and 19 controls were scanned with proton and sodium MRI at 3 Tesla. Total sodium concentration, fractional anisotropy and apparent diffusion coefficient were obtained with voxel averaging across 12 grey and white matter regions. Linear regression was used to obtain global grey and white matter total sodium concentrations. Patient outcome was assessed with global functioning, symptom profiles and neuropsychological function assessments. In the regional analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between patients and controls in apparent diffusion coefficient, while differences in sodium concentration and fractional anisotropy were found only in single regions. However, for each of the 12 regions, sodium concentration effect sizes were uni-directional, due to lower mean sodium concentration in patients compared to controls. Consequently, linear regression analysis found statistically significant lower global grey and white matter sodium concentrations in patients compared to controls. The strongest correlation with outcome was between global grey matter sodium concentration and the composite z-score from the neuropsychological testing. In conclusion, both sodium concentration and diffusion showed poor utility in differentiating patients from controls, and weak correlations with clinical presentation, when using a region-based approach. In contrast, sodium linear regression, capitalizing on partial volume correction and high sensitivity to global changes, revealed high effect sizes and associations with patient outcome. This suggests that well-recognized sodium imbalances in traumatic brain injury are (i) detectable non-invasively; (ii) non-focal; (iii) occur even when the antecedent injury is clinically mild. Finally, in contrast to our principle hypothesis, patients' sodium concentrations were lower than controls, indicating that the biological effect of traumatic brain injury on the sodium homeostasis may differ from that in other neurological disorders. Note: This figure has been annotated.

Project description:ImportanceTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability due to trauma. Early administration of tranexamic acid may benefit patients with TBI.ObjectiveTo determine whether tranexamic acid treatment initiated in the out-of-hospital setting within 2 hours of injury improves neurologic outcome in patients with moderate or severe TBI.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial at 20 trauma centers and 39 emergency medical services agencies in the US and Canada from May 2015 to November 2017. Eligible participants (N = 1280) included out-of-hospital patients with TBI aged 15 years or older with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 or less and systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher.InterventionsThree interventions were evaluated, with treatment initiated within 2 hours of TBI: out-of-hospital tranexamic acid (1 g) bolus and in-hospital tranexamic acid (1 g) 8-hour infusion (bolus maintenance group; n = 312), out-of-hospital tranexamic acid (2 g) bolus and in-hospital placebo 8-hour infusion (bolus only group; n = 345), and out-of-hospital placebo bolus and in-hospital placebo 8-hour infusion (placebo group; n = 309).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was favorable neurologic function at 6 months (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score >4 [moderate disability or good recovery]) in the combined tranexamic acid group vs the placebo group. Asymmetric significance thresholds were set at 0.1 for benefit and 0.025 for harm. There were 18 secondary end points, of which 5 are reported in this article: 28-day mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (range, 0 [no disability] to 30 [death]), progression of intracranial hemorrhage, incidence of seizures, and incidence of thromboembolic events.ResultsAmong 1063 participants, a study drug was not administered to 96 randomized participants and 1 participant was excluded, resulting in 966 participants in the analysis population (mean age, 42 years; 255 [74%] male participants; mean Glasgow Coma Scale score, 8). Of these participants, 819 (84.8%) were available for primary outcome analysis at 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 65% of patients in the tranexamic acid groups vs 62% in the placebo group (difference, 3.5%; [90% 1-sided confidence limit for benefit, -0.9%]; P = .16; [97.5% 1-sided confidence limit for harm, 10.2%]; P = .84). There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality between the tranexamic acid groups vs the placebo group (14% vs 17%; difference, -2.9% [95% CI, -7.9% to 2.1%]; P = .26), 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (6.8 vs 7.6; difference, -0.9 [95% CI, -2.5 to 0.7]; P = .29), or progression of intracranial hemorrhage (16% vs 20%; difference, -5.4% [95% CI, -12.8% to 2.1%]; P = .16).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with moderate to severe TBI, out-of-hospital tranexamic acid administration within 2 hours of injury compared with placebo did not significantly improve 6-month neurologic outcome as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01990768.