Why the study?
Traditional tools for mild traumatic brain injury can be insensitive, newer assessments lack well-established norms, and their stability and cross-domain correlation over time remain unclear.
Comprehensive multi-modality brain injury assessments in healthy volunteers reveal a surprisingly high baseline rate of abnormalities, highlighting the need for caution when interpreting these tests in patients with mild traumatic brain injury.
Common baseline abnormalities in healthy volunteers warrant caution interpreting tests in mTBI; leaves open diagnostic specificity for injury.
Introduction: Even though mild traumatic brain injury is common and can result in persistent symptoms, traditional measurement tools can be insensitive in detecting functional deficits after injury. Some newer assessments do not have well-established norms, and little is known about how these measures perform over time or how cross-domain assessments correlate with one another. We conducted an exploratory pilot study to measure the distribution, stability, and correlation of results from assessments used in mild traumatic brain injury in healthy, community-dwelling adults. Materials and Methods: In this prospective cohort study, healthy adult men and women without a history of brain injury underwent a comprehensive brain injury evaluation that included self-report questionnaires and neurological, electroencephalography, sleep, audiology/vestibular, autonomic, visual, neuroimaging, and laboratory testing. Most testing was performed at 3 intervals over 6 months. Results: The study enrolled 83 participants, and 75 were included in the primary analysis. Mean age was 38 years, 58 were male, and 53 were civilians. Participants did not endorse symptoms of post-concussive syndrome, PTSD, or depression. Abnormal neurological examination findings were rare, and 6 had generalized slowing on electroencephalography. Actigraphy and sleep diary showed good sleep maintenance efficiency, but 21 reported poor sleep quality. Heart rate variability was most stable over time in the sleep segment. Dynavision performance was normal, but 41 participants had abnormal ocular torsion. On eye tracking, circular, horizontal ramp, and reading tasks were more likely to be abnormal than other tasks. Most participants had normal hearing, videonystagmography, and rotational chair testing, but computerized dynamic posturography was abnormal in up to 21% of participants. Twenty-two participants had greater than expected white matter changes for age by MRI. Most abnormal findings were dispersed across the population, though a few participants had clusters of abnormalities. Conclusions: Despite our efforts to enroll normal, healthy volunteers, abnormalities on some measures were surprisingly common.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weaver et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: