Evidence-Based Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions for the Management of Behavioral Issues in Individuals With Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present an evidence-based review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for the management of behavioral issues post moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (MSTBI), as part of an extensive database that has been conceptualized as a living systematic review. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO, up to and including December 2022, for articles published in the English language, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of RCT was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, and level of evidence was assigned using a modified Sackett scale. RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs examining interventions and outcome measures related to behavioral issues post-MSTBI were included. These studies collectively enrolled 3,267 participants. The majority of RCTs were conducted in the United States (n = 27; 58.7%) and 28 (60.9%) were conducted after 2010. Of these, 27 RCTs examined non-pharmacological interventions and 19 examined pharmacological interventions. Effective pharmacological treatments included amantadine and dexmedetomidine. Effective non-pharmacological interventions included sensory stimulation in the acute phase, anger self-management programs, peer mentoring, problem-solving, and emotional regulation. Psychotherapy showed conflicting evidence. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based review provides a comprehensive overview of the research landscape of RCTs addressing behavior post-MSTBI. The findings from these RCTs may be valuable for health care professionals, researchers, and policymakers involved in the field of TBI and behavior.
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 | 0.035 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".