ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2025
Traumatic Brain Injury Diagnostic Interview: Development, Interrater Reliability, and 2-Week Post-Injury Clinical Profiles.
Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of In-Hospital Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Symptom Checklist Within 24 Hours of Injury to Predict 3-Month Symptom Outcome.The Journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- The Boston Assessment of Traumatic Brain Injury Lifetime, Second Edition (BATL-2): Development and Initial Psychometric Evaluation in Post-9/11 Military Veterans.The Journal of head trauma rehabilitationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Because most traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) do not present with objective indicators (e.g., neuroimaging findings) to confirm the diagnosis, clinicians often rely on self- or observer-reporting of alteration of consciousness (AOC; e.g., loss of consciousness [LOC], amnesia, other signs of altered mental status), and symptoms to make diagnoses. Moreover, there is no universal agreement on signs and symptoms to sufficiently diagnose TBI, which leads to variability and ambiguity in how TBI is diagnosed in clinical and research settings. The lack of standardized procedures for the diagnosis of acute TBI is a major challenge that hampers the ability to evaluate and compare TBI studies and advance the science and treatment of TBI. We present a new semi-structured TBI Diagnostic Interview (TBI-DI), developed for prospective TBI research to collect injury information important to verifying eligibility for the diagnosis of TBI. Specifically, the TBI-DI collects patient (and/or witness) reports of head trauma, AOC (including LOC and amnesia), and TBI-related symptomology. We describe the protocol, interrater reliability of the TBI-DI items to the same audio-recorded interview, and observed injury characteristics for interviews conducted at 2 weeks post-injury. The sample comprised 335 interviews (320 self-reported, 10 informant-reported, and 5 both) collected on individuals with TBI who were prospectively recruited from 4 U.S. level 1 trauma centers from 2019 to 2023. Cohen's kappa was calculated to summarize interrater reliability
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.