Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36672036›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2022

Back on the Road: Comparing Cognitive Assessments to Driving Simulators in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries.

Debra S Ouellette, Stephanie Kaplan, Emily R Rosario

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07378592 (Use Of Driving Simulator To Provide Pre-Driving Training For Adults With Acquired Brain Injuries.), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

NCT07378592 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Use Of Driving Simulator To Provide Pre-Driving Training For Adults With Acquired Brain Injuries.

TypeinterventionalSponsorSacred Heart UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled50ConditionsAcquired Brain InjuryArmsDriving Simulation Intervention, Traditional Occupational Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Debra S OuelletteCasa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare Pomona, Pomona, CA 91769, USA.
Stephanie KaplanCasa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare Pomona, Pomona, CA 91769, USA.
Emily R RosarioCasa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare Pomona, Pomona, CA 91769, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1540-197X
Casa Colina Centers for Rehabilitation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare established clinical outcome assessments for predicting behind the wheel driving readiness and driving simulator results across age groups and in traumatic brain injury. Methods: Participants included adults who had a traumatic brain injury ranging in age from 31 to 57 years and a non-impaired adult population ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. Physical and cognitive outcomes measures were collected included range of motion and coordination, a “Rules of the Road Test” a “Sign Identification Test,” Trails A and B, and the clock drawing test. Visual measures included the Dynavision D2 system and motor-free visual perceptual test-3 (MVPT-3). Finally, the driving simulators (STIÒ version M300) metro drive assessment was used, which consisted of negotiating several obstacles in a metropolitan area including vehicles abruptly changing lanes, pedestrians crossing streets, and negotiating construction zones. Results: Our findings suggest that the standard paper-pencil cognitive assessments and sign identification test significantly differentiate TBI from a non-impaired population (Trails A, B and Clock drawing test p < 0.001). While the driving simulator did not show as many robust differences with age, the TBI population did have a significantly greater number of road collisions (F3, 78 = 3.5, p = 0.02). We also observed a significant correlation between the cognitive assessments and the simulator variables. Conclusions: Paper-pencil cognitive assessments and the sign identification test highlight greater differences than the STI Driving Simulator between non-impaired and TBI populations. However, the driving simulator may be useful in assessing cognitive ability and training for on the road driving.

Indexed as

cognitiondrivingdriving assessmentdriving simulatortraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID36672036
PMCPMC9856901
OpenAlexW4313414718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.