ReviewNeurotrauma reports
Analyzing the Spectrum of mTBI Subgroups.
Review in Neurotrauma reports. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients who sustain a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) experience a variety of clinical trajectories. Recent efforts to identify mTBI subtypes have begun to describe observed phenotypic variability. Clinical applicability of these subtypes is limited due to critical variations in each subtype's defining characteristics and limited inclusion of objective data. Here, we review mTBI literature that describes subtypes at various timepoints following injury. We describe five predominately symptom-based subtypes (cognitive, somatosensory, vestibular-ocular, headache, and neuropsychiatric [affective/behavioral]). Each of these subgroups has been reported at separate timepoints postinjury, with the majority of studies describing symptom clusters in the acute and subacute recovery period. Analysis of each subgroup indicates significant overlap and ambiguity within the currently described symptom-based subtypes of mTBI. Additionally, inconsistent terminology within symptom description and subtyping nomenclature limit the ability to compare among one another. We suggest that improved understanding of possible biological processes that contribute to certain clinical trajectories may be identified by incorporating objective assessments, biomarkers, neuroimaging, and genetic analysis into future mTBI subtyping analysis. In doing so, advancements toward individualized symptom management, recovery, and improved care for our mTBI community are possible.
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.