Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33539482›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The Brain Injury Screening Tool (BIST): Tool development, factor structure and validity.

Alice Theadom, Natalie Hardaker, Charlotte Bray, Richard Siegert, Kevin Henshall, Katherine Forch, Kris Fernando, Doug King, Mark Fulcher, Sam Jewell and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Alice TheadomTBI Network, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-0351-6216
Natalie HardakerAccident Compensation Corporation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Charlotte BraySchool of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Richard SiegertSchool of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kevin HenshallTrauma Service, Counties Manukau District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-2744-1546
Katherine ForchSchool of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kris FernandoActive+, Auckland, New Zealand.
Doug KingTBI Network, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Mark FulcherAxis Sports Medicine, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sam JewellWellington Sports Med, Wellington, New Zealand.
Nusratnaaz ShaikhTBI Network, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-8157-226X
Renata Bastos GottgtroyTBI Network, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-2821-7052
Patria HumeTBI Network, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-1847-8128
Auckland University of Technology · NZAccident Compensation Corporation · NZCounties Manukau District Health Board · NZWellington Hospital · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently health care pathways (the combination and order of services that a patient receives to manage their injury) following a mild traumatic brain injury vary considerably. Some clinicians lack confidence in injury recognition, management and knowing when to refer. A clinical expert group developed the Brain Injury Screening Tool (BIST) to provide guidance on health care pathways based on clinical indicators of poor recovery. The tool aims to facilitate access to specialist services (if required) to improve longer term prognosis. The tool was developed using a three-step process including: 1) domain mapping; 2) item development and 3) item testing and review. An online retrospective survey of 114 adults (>16 years) who had experienced a mild brain injury in the past 10 years was used to determine the initial psychometric properties of the 15-item symptom scale of the BIST. Participants were randomised to complete the BIST and one of two existing symptom scales; the Rivermead Post-concussion Symptom Questionnaire (RPQ) or the Sports Concussion Assessment Test (SCAT-5) symptom scale to determine concurrent validity. Participant responses to the BIST symptom scale items were used to determine scale reliability using Cronbach's alpha. A principal components analysis explored the underlying factor structure. Spearman's correlation coefficients determined concurrent validity with the RPQ and SCAT-5 symptom scales. The 15 items were found to require a reading age of 6-8 years old using readability statistics. High concurrent validity was shown against the RPQ (r = 0.91) and SCAT-5 (r = 0.90). The BIST total symptom scale (α = 0.94) and the three factors identified demonstrated excellent internal consistency: physical/emotional (α = 0.90), cognitive (α = 0.92) and vestibular-ocular (α = 0.80). This study provides evidence to support the utility, internal consistency, factor structure and concurrent validity of the BIST. Further research is warranted to determine the utility of the BIST scoring criteria and responsiveness to change in patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBrain ConcussionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsPsychometricsRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33539482
PMCPMC7861451
OpenAlexW3126270083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.