Practice Patterns in Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Therapies for Children with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Survey of 15 Canadian and United States Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the lack of evidence regarding effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and the resultant lack of treatment recommendations reflected in consensus guidelines, variation in the management of pediatric mTBI is to be expected. We therefore surveyed practitioners across 15 centers in the United States and Canada who care for children with pediatric mTBI to evaluate common-practice variation in the management of pediatric mTBI. The survey, developed by a panel of pediatric mTBI experts, consisted of a 10-item survey instrument regarding providers' perception of common pediatric mTBI symptoms and mTBI interventions. Surveys were distributed electronically to a convenience sample of local experts at each center. Frequencies and percentages (with confidence intervals [CI]) were determined for survey responses. One hundred and seven respondents (71% response rate) included specialists in pediatric Emergency Medicine, Sports Medicine, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry, Physical and Occupational Therapy, Physiatry/Rehabilitation, and General Pediatrics. Respondents rated headache as the most prevalently reported symptom after pediatric mTBI, followed by cognitive problems, dizziness, and irritability. Of the 65 (61%; [95% CI: 51,70]) respondents able to prescribe medications, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (55%; [95% CI: 42,68]) and acetaminophen (59%; [95% CI: 46,71]) were most commonly recommended. One in five respondents reported prescribing amitriptyline for headache management after pediatric mTBI, whereas topiramate (8%; [95% CI: 3,17]) was less commonly reported. For cognitive problems, methylphenidate (11%; [95% CI: 4,21]) was used more commonly than amantadine (2%; [95% CI: 0,8]). The most common non-pharmacological interventions were rest ("always" or "often" recommended by 83% [95% CI: 63,92] of the 107 respondents), exercise (59%; [95%CI: 49,69]), vestibular therapy (42% [95%CI: 33,53]) and cervical spine exercises (29% [95%CI: 21,39]). Self-reported utilization for common pediatric mTBI interventions varied widely across our Canadian and United States consortium. Future effectiveness studies for pediatric mTBI are urgently needed to advance the evidence-based care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".