ArticleBMJ open2022
Brain Injury Screening Tool (BIST): test-retest reliability in a community adult sample.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the test-retest reliability of the Brain Injury Screening Tool (BIST), which was designed to support the initial assessment of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) across a variety of contexts, including primary and secondary care.
designTest-retest design over a 2-week period.
settingCommunity based.
participantsSixty-eight adults (aged 18-58 years) who had not experienced an mTBI within the last 5 years and completed the BIST on two different occasions. MEASURES: Participants were invited to complete the 15-item BIST symptom scale and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) online at two time-points (baseline and 2 weeks later). To account for large variations in mood affecting symptom reporting, change scores on the subscales of the DASS-21 were calculated, and outliers were removed from the analysis.
resultsThe BIST total symptom score and subscale scores (physical-emotional, cognitive and vestibular) demonstrated moderate to good test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging between 0.51 and 0.83. There were no meaningful differences between symptom reporting on the total scale or subscales of the BIST between time1 and time2 at the p<0.05 level when calculated using related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
conclusionThe BIST showed evidence of good stability of symptom reporting within a non-injured, community adult sample. This increases confidence that changes observed in symptom reporting in an injured sample are related to actual symptom change rather than measurement error and supports the use of the symptom scale to monitor recovery over time. Further research is needed to explore reliability of the BIST within those aged <16 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.