ArticleBrain sciences2022
Back on the Road: Comparing Cognitive Assessments to Driving Simulators in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries.
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.
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.
Use Of Driving Simulator To Provide Pre-Driving Training For Adults With Acquired Brain Injuries.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.