Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2025
Longitudinal Evaluation of the HABC Monitor Among Trauma Survivors.
Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the sensitivity to change of the Healthy Aging Brain Care Monitor (HABC-M) through a longitudinal analytical comparison with reference standards. Patients and Methods: We used longitudinal data from 120 participants in a multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Trauma Medical Home (TMH). We used the following reference standards: The depression and anxiety subdomains of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Short Form 4a (PROMIS-SF), and the Pain, Enjoyment of Life, and General Activity Scale (PEG). We assessed sensitivity to change using three longitudinal comparative analytical methods. The correlation of the HABC-M score with reference standards' scores over time, the correlation of changes in the HABC-M score with changes in reference standards' scores, and a longitudinal analysis to compare changes in the HABC-M against reference standards' known change categories. Results: Throughout the six-month period, the HABC-M exhibited moderate to high correlations with the HADS (r = 0.66, p<0.001 for the depression subdomain and r = 0.42, p<0.001 for the anxiety subdomain), the PROMIS-SF (r = 0.57, p<0.001), and the PEG (r = 0.47, p<0.001). The changes in HABC-M significantly correlated with changes in reference standards at various time points. HABC-M scores were significantly different across known change categories established by the four reference standards, with standardized response mean (SRM) values ranging from 1.08 to 1.44. Conclusion: The HABC-M is capable of monitoring the recovery of older trauma survivors.
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.