Dataset Information

Main factors predicting somatic, psychological, and cognitive patient outcomes after significant injury: a pilot study of a simple prognostic tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are still insufficient data on the complexity and predictability of patient-related outcomes following trauma. The aim of this study was to assess longer-term outcomes in patients with significant injury and to develop a simple scoring method to identify patients at high risk of subsequent deficits 1-2 years after injury.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of survivors of significant injury (New Injury Severity Score, NISS greater than or equal to 8), with analysis of patients' 1- to 2-year health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and their functional outcomes based on Short Form-36 (SF-36), Trauma Outcome Profile (TOP), and Quality Of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI). Documented variables suspected or known from the literature to be possible factors associated with outcome were first analysed by univariate analysis, and significant variables were entered into a stepwise logistic regression analysis. Scores predicting longer-term impaired outcome were constructed from risk factors resulting from multivariate analysis.

Results

Depending on the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used, up to 30 per cent of 1052 study patients (mean NISS 18.6) indicated somatic, 27 per cent psychological, and 54 per cent cognitive deficits. The investigated sociodemographic, injury-related, treatment, and early hospital outcome variables demonstrated only low associations with longer-term outcome in univariate analysis that were highest for preinjury pain or function (R = 0.4) and outcome at hospital discharge (R = 0.3). After logistic regression, the study variables explained a maximum variance of 23 per cent for somatic, 11 per cent for psychological, and 14 per cent for cognitive longer-term outcomes. The resulting Aarau trauma prognostic longer-term outcome scoring (ATPLOS) system, developed by checking eight risk factors, had a specificity of up to 80 per cent, and importantly may facilitate early detection of patients at risk of a poorer longer-term outcome.

Conclusion

Despite the high rate of deficits recorded for survivors of significant injury, particularly in loss of cognitive function, the multiple variables analysed only led to a limited characterization of patient-related longer-term outcomes. Until more is known about additional individual influencing factors, the proposed scoring system may serve well for clinical evaluation.

Registration number

NCT02165137 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

SUBMITTER: Gross T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8643586 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cognitive screening is often a first step to document cognitive status of patients suspected having Alzheimer's disease (AD). Unfortunately, screening neuropsychological tests are often insensitivity in the detection. The goal of this study was to develop a simple and sensitive screening neuropsychological test to facilitate early detection of AD. This study recruited 761 elderly individuals suspected of having AD and presenting various cognitive statuses (mean age: 77.69 ± 8.45 years; proportion of females: 65%; cognitively unimpaired, CU, n = 133; mild cognitive impairment, MCI, n = 231; dementia of Alzheimer's type, DAT, n = 397). This study developed a novel screening neuropsychological test incorporating assessments of the core memory deficits typical of early AD and an interview on memory function with an informant. The proposed History-based Artificial Intelligence-Show Chwan Assessment of Cognition (HAI-SAC) was assessed in terms of psychometric properties, test time, and discriminative ability. The results were compared with those obtained using other common screening tests, including Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and an extracted Mini-Mental State Examination score from CASI. HAI-SAC demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. Factor analysis revealed two factors: memory (semantic and contextual) and cognition-related information from informants. The assessment performance of HAI-SAC was strongly correlated with that of the common screening neuropsychological tests addressed in this study. HAI-SAC outperformed the other tests in differentiating CU individuals from patients with MCI (sensitivity: 0.87; specificity: 0.58; area under the curve [AUC]: 0.78) or DAT (sensitivity: 0.99; specificity: 0.89; AUC: 0.98). Performance of HAI-SAC on differentiating MCI from DAT was on par with performances of other tests (sensitivity: 0.78; specificity: 0.84; AUC: 0.87), while the test time was less than one quarter that of CASI and half that of MoCA. HAI-SAC is psychometrically sound, cost-effective, and sensitive in discriminating the cognitive status of AD.