A Systematic Review of Psychiatric, Psychological, and Behavioural Outcomes following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding longer-term psychiatric, psychological, and behavioural outcomes (for example, anxiety, mood disorders, depression, and attention disorders) following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in children and adolescents has not been previously synthesized. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the available evidence examining psychiatric, psychological, and behavioural outcomes following mTBI in children and adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine electronic databases were systematically searched from 1980 to August 2014. Studies selected met the following criteria: original data; study design was a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental design, cohort or historical cohort study, case-control study, or cross-sectional study; exposure included mTBI (including concussion); population included children and adolescents (<19 years) at the time of mTBI, as well as a comparison group (for example, healthy children, children with orthopaedic injuries); and included psychiatric, psychological, or behavioural outcomes (for example, anxiety, mood disorders, depression, attention disorders). Two authors independently assessed the quality and level of evidence with the Downs and Black (DB) criteria and Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) model, respectively, for each manuscript. RESULTS: Of 9472 studies identified in the initial search, 30 were included and scored. Heterogeneity in methodology and injury definition precluded meta-analyses. The median methodological quality for all 30 studies, based on the DB criteria, was 15/33 (range 6 to 19). The highest level of evidence demonstrated by all reviewed studies was level 2b based on OCEBM criteria, with the majority (28/30 studies) classified at this level. Based on the literature included in this systematic review, psychological and psychiatric problems in children with a history of mTBI were found to be more prevalent when mTBI is associated with hospitalization, when assessment occurs earlier in the recovery period (that is, resolves over time), when there are multiple previous mTBIs, in individuals with preexisting psychiatric illness, when outcomes are based on retrospective recall, and when the comparison group is noninjured healthy children (as opposed to children with injuries not involving the head). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, few rigorous prospective studies have examined psychological, behavioural, and psychiatric outcomes following mTBI. In the absence of true reports of preinjury problems and when ideally comparing mild TBI to non-TBI injured controls, there is little evidence to suggest that psychological, behavioural, and/or psychiatric problems persist beyond the acute and subacute period following an mTBI in children and adolescents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".