Suppr超能文献

DVBIC-TBICoE 和 LIMBIC-CENC 战斗性相关脑震荡前瞻性纵向研究数据集的交叉比较。

Cross-Walk Comparison of the DVBIC-TBICoE and LIMBIC-CENC Combat-Related Concussion Prospective Longitudinal Study Datasets.

机构信息

National Intrepid Center of Excellence, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Department of Rehabilitation, Uniform Services University, Bethesda, MD.

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R), School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R), Central Virginia VA Healthcare System, Richmond, VA.

出版信息

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023 Jul;104(7):1072-1080.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.02.003. Epub 2023 Feb 25.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare cohorts between 2 large, longitudinal, federally-funded TBI studies of Service members and veterans across demographic, self-report, and neuropsychological variables.

DESIGN

Analysis of data from the DVBIC-TBICoE and LIMBIC-CENC prospective longitudinal studies (PLS).

SETTING

Recruitment locations spanning Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs hospitals across the U.S.

PARTICIPANTS

1463 participants (N=1463) enrolled in the DVBIC-TBICoE study and divided among non-injured (NIC) (n=191), injured control (IC) (n=349), mild TBI (mTBI) (n=682), and (severe, moderate, penetrating, and complicated mild traumatic brain injury (smcTBI) (n=241) subgroups. 1550 participants enrolled in the LIMBIC-CENC study and divided between IC (n=285) and mTBI (n=1265) subgroups. IC and mTBI study groups were compared across demographic and military characteristics, self-reported symptoms, and neuropsychological test scores.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory, PTSD Checklist-Military Version, TBI quality of life, Test of Premorbid Functioning, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV Visual Puzzles, Symbol Search, Coding, Letter-Number Sequencing, and Digit Span, Trail Making Test, Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System Verbal Fluency, Letter Fluency, and Category Fluency, California Verbal Learning Test-II, and Grooved Pegboard.

RESULTS

Compared with DVBIC-TBICoE, LIMBIC-CENC participants have higher enrollment age, education level, proportion of Black race, and time from injury as well as less combat deployments and are less likely to be married. The distribution of military service branches also differed. Further, symptom profiles differed between cohorts. LIMBIC-CENC participants endorsed higher posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology. DVBIC-TBICoE study IC participants endorsed higher somatosensory and vestibular symptoms (medium effect sizes). Other symptom measure differences had very small effect sizes (≤0.2). Differences were found on many cognitive test results, but are difficult to interpret given the demographic differences and generally very small effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

The heavy use of National Institutes of Health common data elements in both studies and collaboration with the DVBIC-TBICoE study team on development of the LIMBIC-CENC assessment battery enabled this comparative analysis. Results highlight unique differences in study cohorts and add perspective and interpretability for assimilating past and future findings.

摘要

目的

描述和比较两个大型、纵向、联邦资助的关于军人和退伍军人创伤性脑损伤(TBI)研究队列,比较其在人口统计学、自我报告和神经心理学变量方面的差异。

设计

对 DVBIC-TBICoE 和 LIMBIC-CENC 前瞻性纵向研究(PLS)的数据进行分析。

地点

美国国防部和退伍军人事务部医院的招募地点。

参与者

1463 名参与者(N=1463)参加了 DVBIC-TBICoE 研究,分为非受伤(NIC)(n=191)、受伤对照组(IC)(n=349)、轻度 TBI(mTBI)(n=682)和(严重、中度、穿透性和复杂性轻度创伤性脑损伤(smcTBI)(n=241)亚组。1550 名参与者参加了 LIMBIC-CENC 研究,分为 IC(n=285)和 mTBI(n=1265)亚组。比较了 IC 和 mTBI 研究组在人口统计学和军事特征、自我报告的症状和神经心理学测试分数方面的差异。

干预措施

无。

主要观察指标

神经行为症状问卷、创伤后应激障碍检查表-军事版、TBI 生活质量、测试前功能、韦氏成人智力量表-IV 视觉拼图、符号搜索、编码、数字序列和数字跨度、连线测试、德利斯-卡普兰执行功能系统言语流畅性、字母流畅性和类别流畅性、加利福尼亚语言学习测试-II 和槽形钉板。

结果

与 DVBIC-TBICoE 相比,LIMBIC-CENC 参与者的入组年龄、教育程度、黑种人比例和受伤时间更高,战斗部署次数更少,已婚比例更低。军事部门的分布也不同。此外,队列之间的症状特征也不同。LIMBIC-CENC 参与者报告的创伤后应激障碍症状更严重。DVBIC-TBICoE 研究 IC 参与者报告的躯体感觉和前庭症状更严重(中等效应大小)。其他症状测量结果的差异具有非常小的效应大小(≤0.2)。由于人口统计学差异和普遍非常小的效应大小,许多认知测试结果存在差异,但难以解释。

结论

这两项研究都大量使用了美国国立卫生研究院的通用数据元素,并与 DVBIC-TBICoE 研究团队合作,共同开发了 LIMBIC-CENC 评估工具包,这使得该对比分析成为可能。结果突出了研究队列的独特差异,并为整合过去和未来的发现提供了视角和可解释性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验