King N S, Crawford S, Wenden F J, Moss N E, Wade D T, Caldwell F E
Oxford Head Injury Service, Rivermead Rehabilitation Centre, UK.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1997 Jan;62(1):38-42. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.62.1.38.
To develop and test a clinical protocol for determining post-traumatic amnesia by retrospective questioning. To establish its limits and factors which influence reliability.
Two independent assessments using the Rivermead post-traumatic amnesia protocol were undertaken by separate observers on various groups of patients at various time intervals. Analysis investigated the correlations between assessments, the percentage difference between assessments, the number of patients changing category, and the differences between these analyses in the different patient subgroups. Assessments were undertaken both in hospital and in the patients' homes. Four different patient groups were studied. These were group A: 12 inpatients with very severe head injury late after injury; Group B: 40 patients interviewed at home six months after injury; group C: 22 patients interviewed within a few weeks of injury at home; group D: 116 patients interviewed initially within a few weeks and then at six months, on both occasions at home. The Rivermead post-traumatic amnesia protocol involved clinical questioning of the patient to establish how long after injury (in hours/days/weeks) the patient regained continuous day to day memory. All periods of coma were included. Severity was categorised with standard criteria.
Overall correlation was good (Spearman's r 0.79), but the correlation was lower for patients with post-traumatic amnesia < 24 hours and when there was a long delay between assessments. In all groups 19%-25% of patients changed categories between assessments, but only 2% changed by two categories.
The assessment of post-traumatic amnesia with the Rivermead post-traumatic amnesia protocol is reasonably reliable. The misclassification rate however, is significant enough that some caution should be taken in individual cases. Other evidence does show post-traumatic amnesia to be valid, and it probably remains the best simple prognostic item available. In clinical practice one should avoid placing too much weight on post-traumatic amnesia alone.
制定并测试一项通过回顾性询问来确定创伤后遗忘症的临床方案。确定其局限性以及影响可靠性的因素。
由不同观察者在不同时间间隔对各类患者群体使用里弗米德创伤后遗忘症方案进行两次独立评估。分析调查了评估之间的相关性、评估之间的百分比差异、类别变化的患者数量以及不同患者亚组中这些分析之间的差异。评估在医院和患者家中进行。研究了四个不同的患者群体。这些群体分别是:A组:12名重度颅脑损伤患者,受伤后期住院;B组:40名患者在受伤六个月后在家中接受访谈;C组:22名患者在受伤后几周内在家中接受访谈;D组:116名患者最初在受伤后几周内接受访谈,然后在六个月时再次访谈,两次均在家中进行。里弗米德创伤后遗忘症方案包括对患者进行临床询问,以确定患者受伤后(以小时/天/周为单位)恢复连续日常记忆的时间。所有昏迷期均包括在内。严重程度根据标准标准进行分类。
总体相关性良好(斯皮尔曼秩相关系数r为0.79),但对于创伤后遗忘症<24小时的患者以及评估之间存在长时间延迟时,相关性较低。在所有组中,19% - 25%的患者在评估之间类别发生变化,但只有2%的患者类别变化达两级。
使用里弗米德创伤后遗忘症方案评估创伤后遗忘症具有一定的可靠性。然而,错误分类率足够高,在个别病例中应谨慎对待。其他证据确实表明创伤后遗忘症是有效的,并且它可能仍然是现有的最佳简单预后指标。在临床实践中,不应仅过分依赖创伤后遗忘症。