Questionnaires vs Interviews for the Assessment of Global Functional Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury
IMPORTANCE: An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the p...
Saved in:
| Published in: | JAMA Network Open Vol. 4; no. 11; p. e2134121 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
American Medical Association
01.11.2021
JAMA Network |
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 2574-3805, 2574-3805 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | IMPORTANCE: An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point. OBJECTIVE: To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury. EXPOSURES: Traumatic brain injury of all severities. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms. RESULTS: Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, −0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Importance An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point. Objective To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury. Exposures Traumatic brain injury of all severities. Main Outcomes and Measures Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms. Results Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, −0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews. This cohort study compares global functional outcome ratings of the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended administered as a structured interview vs a questionnaire to patients with traumatic brain injury. Background: There is potentially considerable variation in the nature and duration of the care provided to hospitalised patients during an infectious disease epidemic or pandemic. Improvements in care and clinician confidence may shorten the time spent as an inpatient, or the need for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU). On the other hand, limited resources at times of high demand may lead to rationing. Nevertheless, these variables may be used as static proxies for disease severity, as outcome measures for trials, and to inform planning and logistics. Methods: We investigate these time trends in an extremely large international cohort of 142,540 patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Investigated are: time from symptom onset to hospital admission, probability of ICU/HDU admission, time from hospital admission to ICU/HDU admission, hospital case fatality ratio (hCFR) and total length of hospital stay. Results: Time from onset to admission showed a rapid decline during the first months of the pandemic followed by peaks during August/September and December 2020. ICU/HDU admission was more frequent from June to August. The hCFR was lowest from June to August. Raw numbers for overall hospital stay showed little variation, but there is clear decline in time to discharge for ICU/HDU survivors. Conclusions: Our results establish that variables of these kinds have limitations when used as outcome measures in a rapidly evolving situation. Funding: This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Importance: An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point. Objective: To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury. Exposures: Traumatic brain injury of all severities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms. Results: Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews. An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point.ImportanceAn interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point.To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages.ObjectiveTo examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages.This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury.Traumatic brain injury of all severities.ExposuresTraumatic brain injury of all severities.Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms.Main Outcomes and MeasuresRatings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms.Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength.ResultsAmong the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength.In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews. IMPORTANCE: An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point. OBJECTIVE: To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury. EXPOSURES: Traumatic brain injury of all severities. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms. RESULTS: Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews. An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, several multicenter clinical trials have used questionnaires completed by a patient or caregiver to assess the primary end point. To examine agreement between interview and questionnaire formats for assessing TBI outcomes and to consider whether an interview has advantages. This cohort study used data from patients enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) project from December 2014 to December 2017. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to April 2021. Included patients were aged 16 years or older with TBI and a clinical indication for computed tomography imaging. Outcome assessments were completed using both an interview and a questionnaire at follow-up 3 and 6 months after injury. Traumatic brain injury of all severities. Ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) administered as a structured interview rated by an investigator and as a questionnaire completed by patients or caregivers and scored centrally were compared, and the strength of agreement was evaluated using weighted κ statistics. Secondary outcomes included comparison of different sections of the GOSE assessments and the association of GOSE ratings with baseline factors and patient-reported mental health, health-related quality of life, and TBI symptoms. Among the 3691 eligible individuals in the CENTER-TBI study, both GOSE assessment formats (interview and questionnaire) were completed by 994 individuals (26.9%) at 3 months after TBI (654 [65.8%] male; median age, 53 years [IQR, 33-66 years]) and 628 (17.0%) at 6 months (409 [65.1%] male; median age, 51 years [IQR, 31-64 years]). Outcomes of the 2 assessment methods agreed well at both 3 months (weighted κ, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80) and 6 months (weighted κ, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86). Furthermore, item-level agreement between the 2 methods was good for sections regarding independence in everyday activities (κ, 0.70-0.79 across both time points) and moderate for sections regarding subjective aspects of functioning such as relationships and symptoms (κ, 0.41-0.51 across both time points). Compared with questionnaires, interviews recorded more problems with work (294 [30.5%] vs 233 [24.2%] at 3 months and 161 [26.8%] vs 136 [22.7%] at 6 months), fewer limitations in social and leisure activities (330 [33.8%] vs 431 [44.1%] at 3 months and 179 [29.7%] vs 219 [36.4%] at 6 months), and more symptoms (524 [53.6%] vs 324 [33.1%] at 3 months and 291 [48.4%] vs 179 [29.8%] at 6 months). Interviewers sometimes assigned an overall rating based on judgment rather than interview scoring rules, particularly for patients with potentially unfavorable TBI outcomes. However, for both formats, correlations with baseline factors (ρ, -0.13 to 0.42) and patient-reported outcomes (ρ, 0.29 to 0.65) were similar in strength. In this cohort study, GOSE ratings obtained by questionnaire and interview methods were in good agreement. The similarity of associations of the ratings obtained by both GOSE methods with baseline factors and other TBI outcome measures suggests that despite some apparent differences, the core information collected by both interviews and questionnaires was similar. The findings support the use of questionnaires in studies in which this form of contact may offer substantial practical advantages compared with interviews. |
| Author | Horton, Lindsay Rhodes, Jonathan Menon, David K Wilson, Lindsay Maas, Andrew I. R |
| AuthorAffiliation | 4 Department of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium 1 Division of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom 2 Department of Anaesthesia, University of Edinburgh, Western General, Edinburgh, United Kingdom 3 Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom |
| AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 3 Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom – name: 1 Division of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom – name: 4 Department of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium – name: 2 Department of Anaesthesia, University of Edinburgh, Western General, Edinburgh, United Kingdom |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Lindsay surname: Horton fullname: Horton, Lindsay – sequence: 2 givenname: Jonathan surname: Rhodes fullname: Rhodes, Jonathan – sequence: 3 givenname: David K surname: Menon fullname: Menon, David K – sequence: 4 givenname: Andrew I. R surname: Maas fullname: Maas, Andrew I. R – sequence: 5 givenname: Lindsay surname: Wilson fullname: Wilson, Lindsay |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34762111$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed https://hal.science/hal-04831497$$DView record in HAL https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-193098$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index (Umeå universitet) http://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:148094058$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index (Karolinska Institutet) |
| BookMark | eNqNkkuP0zAUhSM0iHkwf4AFimADixY_YjthgegMzEOqNEIa2FqOe9O6k9jFTlrNv8dpSjXTBWKVK_s7595cn9PkyDoLSfIOozFGCH9aqkZZaDfOP7gV2DFBBI9phgl-kZwQJrIRzRE7elIfJ-chLBFCBGFacPYqOaaZ4ARjfJIsf3QQWuOsVcZDSNchvbUt-LWBTUgr59N2AekkBAihAdumrkqva1eqOr3qrO6VsbzrWu2aKJ9UUZvee9U1qjU6vfDK2Oi47Pzj6-RlpeoA57vvWfLz6vv95c1oend9ezmZjhQnoh3lUCpFsxKjGStmGVClQWHEuZoBIgwxlnNBKqaRwLqkBVSo5FnUMKQBZ4SeJaPBN2xg1ZVy5U2j_KN0ysjd0UOsQGZMCCT-yX8zvybS-bnsmk7igqIij_yXgY9wAzMdt-JV_Uz2_MaahZy7tczj5AXi0YAOBrWBOUT70sg12Qq3dVfPpdKyBEkIzyXJC8xYVH0cVIuDZjeTqezPUJZTnBVijSP7YTeid7_7B5aNCRrqOkbHdUESVvCMxWz0w7w_QJeu8_FRI8W5EAIz3O_o7dN_3vf_G6QIfB4A7V0IHqo9gpHsgysPgiv74MptcKP464FYm1b12Yr7M_X_WbwZLCKyb01Ezooc0z8lqwYm |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0280796 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ebiom_2024_105298 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_injury_2022_05_009 crossref_primary_10_1089_neur_2023_0127 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2023_53318 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12028_023_01918_8 crossref_primary_10_1089_neu_2022_0365 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1089/089771502760341910 10.1007/s11065-017-9353-5 10.1056/NEJMoa1605215 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.03.004 10.1007/3-211-27577-0 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x 10.1089/neu.2014.3644 10.1080/21642850.2014.966717 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824519ce 10.1089/neu.2009.1077 10.1227/01.neu.0000279732.21145.9e 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575 10.1056/NEJMoa1507581 10.1089/neu.1998.15.573 10.1089/neu.2020.7528 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30232-7 10.1089/neu.2018.5648 10.1089/neu.2018.6061 10.1089/neu.2017.5139 10.1097/00001199-200305000-00003 10.1007/BF00868811 10.3390/brainsci7080105 10.1177/001316446002000104 10.1097/00005373-197403000-00001 10.1089/neu.2006.0036 10.3109/02699052.2011.624571 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.033 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70233-6 10.1089/neu.2020.7527 10.1111/bmsp.2016.69.issue-3 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.517805 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66552-X 10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.002 10.1177/001316447303300309 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000457 10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Contributor | Maas, Andrew I R Takala, Riikka Rosenthal, Guy Schmidt, Silke Blaabjerg, Morten Wolf, Stefan Sakowitz, Oliver Bullinger, Monika Laureys, Steven Misset, Benoit Benali, Habib Tenovuo, Olli Vámos, Zoltán Ghuysen, Alexandre Perlbarg, Vincent Ledoux, Didier Vajkoczy, Peter Vallance, Shirley Buki, Andras Unterberg, Andreas Schwendenwein, Elisabeth Maréchal, Hugues Kondziella, Daniel Kovács, Noémi Brooker, Joanne Azouvi, Philippe Trapani, Tony Coburn, Mark Steven Verheyden, Jan Antoni, Anna Amrein, Krisztina Helbok, Raimund Perera, Natascha Van der Steen, Gregory Rosenlund, Christina Gratz, Johannes Cameron, Peter Palotie, Aarno Nyirádi, József Jiang, Ji-Yao Beauvais, Romuald Dahyot-Fizelier, Claire Ezer, Erzsébet Fabricius, Martin Tamás, Viktória Pirinen, Matti Čović, Amra Furmanov, Alex Van Praag, Dominique Kowark, Ana Raj, Rahul Parizel, Paul M Cooper, Jamie D Gao, Guoyi Clusmann, Hans Gantner, Dashiell Vande Vyvere, Thijs Van Hecke, Wim Lejeune, Aurelie Puybasset, Louis Barzó, Pál Piippo-Karjalainen, Anna Posti, Jussi P Martino, Costanza Donoghue, Emm Tibboel, Dick Esser, Patrick Cabeleira, Manuel Jacobs, Bram Andreassen, Lasse Giga, Lelde Majdan, Marek Peul, Wilco Dark, Paul Valeinis, Egils Smielewski, Peter Thomas, Matt Rosand, Jonathan Lightfoot, Roger Huijben, Jilske Rehorčíková, Veronika van Essen, Thomas A Beretta, Luigi Haitsma, Iain Oresic, Matej Johnson, Faye Ragauskas, Arminas Adams, Hadie Velt, Kimberley Rădoi, Andreea Sewalt, Charlie Mikolic, Ana Jarrett, Mike Karan, Mladen Wilson, Lindsay Ackerlund, Cecilia Czosnyka, Marek Zoerle, Tommaso Lecky, Fiona van der Jagt, Mathieu Tamosuitis, Tomas Tolias, Christos Grossi, Francesca Voormolen, Daphne van der Naalt, Joukje Volovici, Victor Coop Koskinen, Lars-Owe D. |
| Contributor_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Russell L surname: Gruen fullname: Gruen, Russell L – sequence: 1 fullname: Gruen, Russell L – sequence: 1 givenname: Lars-Owe D. surname: Koskinen fullname: Koskinen, Lars-Owe D. organization: Neurovetenskaper – sequence: 2 givenname: Peter surname: Cameron fullname: Cameron, Peter – sequence: 3 givenname: Emma surname: Donoghue fullname: Donoghue, Emma – sequence: 4 givenname: Dashiell surname: Gantner fullname: Gantner, Dashiell – sequence: 4 fullname: Gantner, Dashiell – sequence: 5 givenname: Tony surname: Trapani fullname: Trapani, Tony – sequence: 5 fullname: Trapani, Tony – sequence: 6 givenname: Shirley surname: Vallance fullname: Vallance, Shirley – sequence: 7 givenname: Lynnette surname: Murray fullname: Murray, Lynnette – sequence: 8 givenname: Joanne surname: Brooker fullname: Brooker, Joanne – sequence: 9 givenname: Peter surname: Bragge fullname: Bragge, Peter – sequence: 9 fullname: Bragge, Peter – sequence: 10 givenname: Jeffrey surname: Rosenfeld fullname: Rosenfeld, Jeffrey – sequence: 10 fullname: Rosenfeld, Jeffrey – sequence: 11 givenname: Jamie D surname: Cooper fullname: Cooper, Jamie D – sequence: 11 fullname: Cooper, Jamie D – sequence: 12 givenname: Raimund surname: Helbok fullname: Helbok, Raimund – sequence: 12 fullname: Helbok, Raimund – sequence: 13 givenname: Ronny surname: Beer fullname: Beer, Ronny – sequence: 14 givenname: Herbert surname: Schoechl fullname: Schoechl, Herbert – sequence: 14 fullname: Schoechl, Herbert – sequence: 15 givenname: Martin surname: Rusnák fullname: Rusnák, Martin – sequence: 15 fullname: Rusnák, Martin – sequence: 16 givenname: Elisabeth surname: Schwendenwein fullname: Schwendenwein, Elisabeth – sequence: 16 fullname: Schwendenwein, Elisabeth – sequence: 17 givenname: Anna surname: Antoni fullname: Antoni, Anna – sequence: 18 givenname: Véronique surname: De Keyser fullname: De Keyser, Véronique – sequence: 18 fullname: De Keyser, Véronique – sequence: 19 givenname: Tomas surname: Menovsky fullname: Menovsky, Tomas – sequence: 20 givenname: Dominique surname: Van Praag fullname: Van Praag, Dominique – sequence: 20 fullname: Van Praag, Dominique – sequence: 21 givenname: Andrew I R surname: Maas fullname: Maas, Andrew I R – sequence: 21 fullname: Maas, Andrew I R – sequence: 22 givenname: Gregory surname: Van der Steen fullname: Van der Steen, Gregory – sequence: 22 fullname: Van der Steen, Gregory – sequence: 23 givenname: Paul M surname: Parizel fullname: Parizel, Paul M – sequence: 24 givenname: Thijs surname: Vande Vyvere fullname: Vande Vyvere, Thijs – sequence: 25 givenname: Bart surname: Depreitere fullname: Depreitere, Bart – sequence: 25 fullname: Depreitere, Bart – sequence: 26 givenname: Wim surname: Van Hecke fullname: Van Hecke, Wim – sequence: 27 givenname: Jan surname: Verheyden fullname: Verheyden, Jan – sequence: 27 fullname: Verheyden, Jan – sequence: 28 givenname: Benoit surname: Misset fullname: Misset, Benoit – sequence: 29 givenname: Didier surname: Ledoux fullname: Ledoux, Didier – sequence: 30 givenname: Steven surname: Laureys fullname: Laureys, Steven – sequence: 30 orcidid: 0000-0002-3096-3807 fullname: LAUREYS, Steven – sequence: 31 givenname: Alexandre surname: Ghuysen fullname: Ghuysen, Alexandre – sequence: 31 fullname: GHUYSEN, Alexandre – sequence: 32 givenname: Hugues surname: Maréchal fullname: Maréchal, Hugues – sequence: 33 givenname: Guy-Loup surname: Dulière fullname: Dulière, Guy-Loup – sequence: 34 givenname: Guoyi surname: Gao fullname: Gao, Guoyi – sequence: 34 fullname: Gao, Guoyi – sequence: 35 givenname: Ji-Yao surname: Jiang fullname: Jiang, Ji-Yao – sequence: 36 givenname: Daniel surname: Kondziella fullname: Kondziella, Daniel – sequence: 37 givenname: Martin surname: Fabricius fullname: Fabricius, Martin – sequence: 37 fullname: Fabricius, Martin – sequence: 38 givenname: Rico Frederik surname: Schou fullname: Schou, Rico Frederik – sequence: 39 givenname: Morten surname: Blaabjerg fullname: Blaabjerg, Morten – sequence: 40 givenname: Christina surname: Rosenlund fullname: Rosenlund, Christina – sequence: 40 fullname: Rosenlund, Christina – sequence: 41 givenname: Anna surname: Piippo-Karjalainen fullname: Piippo-Karjalainen, Anna – sequence: 42 givenname: Rahul surname: Raj fullname: Raj, Rahul – sequence: 42 fullname: Raj, Rahul – sequence: 43 givenname: Matti surname: Pirinen fullname: Pirinen, Matti – sequence: 44 givenname: Samuli surname: Ripatti fullname: Ripatti, Samuli – sequence: 45 givenname: Aarno surname: Palotie fullname: Palotie, Aarno – sequence: 46 givenname: Peter surname: Ylén fullname: Ylén, Peter – sequence: 46 fullname: Ylén, Peter – sequence: 47 givenname: Jussi P surname: Posti fullname: Posti, Jussi P – sequence: 47 fullname: Posti, Jussi P – sequence: 48 givenname: Olli surname: Tenovuo fullname: Tenovuo, Olli – sequence: 48 fullname: Tenovuo, Olli – sequence: 49 givenname: Riikka surname: Takala fullname: Takala, Riikka – sequence: 50 givenname: Jean-François surname: Payen fullname: Payen, Jean-François – sequence: 51 givenname: Emmanuel surname: Vega fullname: Vega, Emmanuel – sequence: 51 fullname: Vega, Emmanuel – sequence: 52 givenname: Aurelie surname: Lejeune fullname: Lejeune, Aurelie – sequence: 53 givenname: Gérard surname: Audibert fullname: Audibert, Gérard – sequence: 53 fullname: Audibert, Gérard – sequence: 54 givenname: Vincent surname: Degos fullname: Degos, Vincent – sequence: 54 fullname: Degos, Vincent – sequence: 55 givenname: Habib surname: Benali fullname: Benali, Habib – sequence: 56 givenname: Damien surname: Galanaud fullname: Galanaud, Damien – sequence: 56 fullname: Galanaud, Damien – sequence: 57 givenname: Vincent surname: Perlbarg fullname: Perlbarg, Vincent – sequence: 58 givenname: Louis surname: Puybasset fullname: Puybasset, Louis – sequence: 58 fullname: Puybasset, Louis – sequence: 59 givenname: Philippe surname: Azouvi fullname: Azouvi, Philippe – sequence: 60 givenname: Valerie surname: Legrand fullname: Legrand, Valerie – sequence: 60 fullname: Legrand, Valerie – sequence: 61 givenname: Claire surname: Dahyot-Fizelier fullname: Dahyot-Fizelier, Claire – sequence: 61 fullname: Dahyot-Fizelier, Claire – sequence: 62 givenname: Rolf surname: Rossaint fullname: Rossaint, Rolf – sequence: 63 givenname: Mark Steven surname: Coburn fullname: Coburn, Mark Steven – sequence: 64 givenname: Ana surname: Kowark fullname: Kowark, Ana – sequence: 65 givenname: Hans surname: Clusmann fullname: Clusmann, Hans – sequence: 66 givenname: Jens surname: Dreier fullname: Dreier, Jens – sequence: 67 givenname: Stefan surname: Wolf fullname: Wolf, Stefan – sequence: 67 fullname: Wolf, Stefan – sequence: 68 givenname: Peter surname: Vajkoczy fullname: Vajkoczy, Peter – sequence: 69 givenname: Marc surname: Maegele fullname: Maegele, Marc – sequence: 70 givenname: Johannes surname: Gratz fullname: Gratz, Johannes – sequence: 71 givenname: Nadine surname: Schäfer fullname: Schäfer, Nadine – sequence: 72 givenname: Rolf surname: Lefering fullname: Lefering, Rolf – sequence: 73 givenname: Amra surname: Čović fullname: Čović, Amra – sequence: 73 fullname: Čović, Amra – sequence: 74 givenname: Nicole surname: von Steinbüchel fullname: von Steinbüchel, Nicole – sequence: 74 fullname: von Steinbüchel, Nicole – sequence: 75 givenname: Silke surname: Schmidt fullname: Schmidt, Silke – sequence: 75 fullname: Schmidt, Silke – sequence: 76 givenname: Monika surname: Bullinger fullname: Bullinger, Monika – sequence: 77 givenname: Alexander surname: Younsi fullname: Younsi, Alexander – sequence: 78 givenname: Andreas surname: Unterberg fullname: Unterberg, Andreas – sequence: 78 fullname: Unterberg, Andreas – sequence: 79 givenname: Julia surname: Mattern fullname: Mattern, Julia – sequence: 79 fullname: Mattern, Julia – sequence: 80 givenname: Oliver surname: Sakowitz fullname: Sakowitz, Oliver – sequence: 80 fullname: Sakowitz, Oliver – sequence: 81 givenname: Renan surname: Sanchez-Porras fullname: Sanchez-Porras, Renan – sequence: 82 givenname: Natascha surname: Perera fullname: Perera, Natascha – sequence: 83 givenname: Romuald surname: Beauvais fullname: Beauvais, Romuald – sequence: 83 fullname: Beauvais, Romuald – sequence: 84 givenname: Janos surname: Sandor fullname: Sandor, Janos – sequence: 84 fullname: Sandor, Janos – sequence: 85 givenname: Endre surname: Czeiter fullname: Czeiter, Endre – sequence: 86 givenname: Andras surname: Buki fullname: Buki, Andras – sequence: 87 givenname: Erzsébet surname: Ezer fullname: Ezer, Erzsébet – sequence: 88 givenname: Zoltán surname: Vámos fullname: Vámos, Zoltán – sequence: 88 fullname: Vámos, Zoltán – sequence: 89 givenname: Béla surname: Melegh fullname: Melegh, Béla – sequence: 89 fullname: Melegh, Béla – sequence: 90 givenname: Viktória surname: Tamás fullname: Tamás, Viktória – sequence: 90 fullname: Tamás, Viktória – sequence: 91 givenname: Abayomi surname: Sorinola fullname: Sorinola, Abayomi – sequence: 92 givenname: Noémi surname: Kovács fullname: Kovács, Noémi – sequence: 92 fullname: Kovács, Noémi – sequence: 93 givenname: József surname: Nyirádi fullname: Nyirádi, József – sequence: 94 givenname: Krisztina surname: Amrein fullname: Amrein, Krisztina – sequence: 95 givenname: Pál surname: Barzó fullname: Barzó, Pál – sequence: 96 givenname: Deepak surname: Gupta fullname: Gupta, Deepak – sequence: 96 fullname: Gupta, Deepak – sequence: 97 givenname: Leon surname: Levi fullname: Levi, Leon – sequence: 98 givenname: Guy surname: Rosenthal fullname: Rosenthal, Guy – sequence: 99 givenname: Alex surname: Furmanov fullname: Furmanov, Alex – sequence: 100 givenname: Costanza surname: Martino fullname: Martino, Costanza – sequence: 100 fullname: Martino, Costanza – sequence: 102 fullname: Calvi, Maria Rosa – sequence: 103 fullname: Azzolini, Maria Luisa – sequence: 104 fullname: Stocchetti, Nino – sequence: 106 fullname: Zoerle, Tommaso – sequence: 107 fullname: Ortolano, Fabrizio – sequence: 114 fullname: Della Corte, Francesco – sequence: 116 fullname: Rossi, Sandra – sequence: 118 fullname: Berardino, Maurizio – sequence: 120 fullname: Rambadagalla, Malinka – sequence: 122 fullname: Giga, Lelde – sequence: 125 fullname: Tamosuitis, Tomas – sequence: 126 fullname: Rocka, Saulius – sequence: 127 fullname: Ragauskas, Arminas – sequence: 128 fullname: van der Naalt, Joukje – sequence: 130 fullname: Steyerberg, Ewout W – sequence: 132 fullname: den Boogert, Hugo – sequence: 135 fullname: Foks, Kelly – sequence: 136 fullname: Haitsma, Iain – sequence: 137 fullname: Volovici, Victor – sequence: 140 fullname: Mikolic, Ana – sequence: 146 fullname: Wiegers, Eveline – sequence: 150 fullname: Sewalt, Charlie – sequence: 151 fullname: Gravesteijn, Benjamin – sequence: 152 fullname: Polinder, Suzanne – sequence: 153 fullname: Tibboel, Dick – sequence: 155 fullname: van Dijck, Jeroen T J M – sequence: 156 fullname: van Essen, Thomas A – sequence: 157 fullname: Peul, Wilco – sequence: 165 fullname: Roise, Olav – sequence: 170 fullname: Vik, Anne – sequence: 171 fullname: Skandsen, Toril – sequence: 175 fullname: Vulekovic, Peter – sequence: 178 fullname: Golubović, Jagoš – sequence: 179 fullname: Rehorčíková, Veronika – sequence: 180 fullname: Taylor, Mark Steven – sequence: 184 fullname: Rădoi, Andreea – sequence: 187 fullname: Lagares, Alfonso – sequence: 188 fullname: Gomez, Pedro A – sequence: 191 fullname: Oresic, Matej – sequence: 193 fullname: Lanyon, Linda – sequence: 196 fullname: Nelson, David – sequence: 198 fullname: Koskinen, Lars-Owe – sequence: 199 fullname: Sundström, Nina – sequence: 201 fullname: Belli, Antonio – sequence: 208 fullname: Richardson, Sylvia – sequence: 212 fullname: Menon, David – sequence: 215 fullname: Newcombe, Virginia – sequence: 219 fullname: Kolias, Angelos G – sequence: 220 fullname: Adams, Hadie – sequence: 221 fullname: Correia, Marta – sequence: 227 fullname: Tolias, Christos – sequence: 232 fullname: Stanworth, Simon – sequence: 240 fullname: Horton, Lindsay |
| Copyright | 2021. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Copyright 2021 Horton L et al. . |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2021. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License – notice: Copyright 2021 Horton L et al. . |
| CorporateAuthor | Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) Participants and Investigators |
| CorporateAuthor_xml | – name: Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) Participants and Investigators |
| DBID | ZGVWO AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7X7 7XB 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BENPR CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH K9. M0S PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 1XC JLOSS Q33 5PM ADHXS ADTPV AOWAS D8T D93 ZZAVC |
| DOI | 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34121 |
| DatabaseName | JAMA Network (Open Access) CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic Publicly Available Content (ProQuest) ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic (retired) ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) Université de Liège - Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBI) (Open Access titles only) Université de Liège - Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBI) PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) SWEPUB Umeå universitet full text SwePub SwePub Articles SWEPUB Freely available online SWEPUB Umeå universitet SwePub Articles full text |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Central China ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Korea ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: ZGVWO name: JAMA Network (Open Access) url: https://jamanetwork.com sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 3 dbid: PIMPY name: Publicly Available Content Database url: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| DocumentTitleAlternate | Questionnaires vs Interviews for Assessing Functional Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury |
| EISSN | 2574-3805 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_swepub_ki_se_457707 oai_DiVA_org_umu_193098 PMC8586906 oai_orbi_ulg_ac_be_2268_289155 oai:HAL:hal-04831497v1 34762111 10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2021_34121 2785981 |
| Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article Comparative Study |
| GroupedDBID | ZGVWO 0R~ 53G 7X7 8FI 8FJ AAYXX ABUWG ADBBV ADPDF AFFHD AFKRA ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMJDE BCNDV BENPR CCPQU CITATION EBS EMOBN FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ H13 HMCUK OK1 OVD OVEED PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY RAJ TEORI UKHRP W2D ALIPV CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF M~E NPM 3V. 7XB 8FK AZQEC DWQXO K9. PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 PUEGO 1XC JLOSS Q33 5PM ADHXS ADTPV AOWAS D8T D93 EJD ZZAVC |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-a627t-8ebaa34b10d59d4e3acea1066ade0250558672f5c071cb39ef0b64baa50ce1423 |
| IEDL.DBID | BENPR |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 8 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000717729000004&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 2574-3805 |
| IngestDate | Tue Nov 25 03:21:03 EST 2025 Tue Nov 04 17:19:45 EST 2025 Tue Nov 04 01:51:12 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 01:28:44 EST 2025 Tue Oct 14 20:53:21 EDT 2025 Wed Oct 01 12:16:56 EDT 2025 Tue Oct 07 07:11:55 EDT 2025 Tue Apr 01 03:09:39 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 18 22:44:00 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 06:31:41 EST 2025 Fri Jul 05 02:00:41 EDT 2024 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 11 |
| Language | English |
| License | Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a627t-8ebaa34b10d59d4e3acea1066ade0250558672f5c071cb39ef0b64baa50ce1423 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-2 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 scopus-id:2-s2.0-85119383687 |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-6849-1825 0000-0002-6540-5725 0000-0001-7158-1218 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.proquest.com/docview/2667771517?pq-origsite=%requestingapplication% |
| PMID | 34762111 |
| PQID | 2667771517 |
| PQPubID | 5319538 |
| ParticipantIDs | swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_457707 swepub_primary_oai_DiVA_org_umu_193098 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8586906 liege_orbi_v2_oai_orbi_ulg_ac_be_2268_289155 hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04831497v1 proquest_miscellaneous_2596458056 proquest_journals_2667771517 pubmed_primary_34762111 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2021_34121 crossref_citationtrail_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2021_34121 ama_primary_2785981 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2021-11-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2021-11-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 11 year: 2021 text: 2021-11-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: Chicago |
| PublicationTitle | JAMA Network Open |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | JAMA Netw Open |
| PublicationYear | 2021 |
| Publisher | American Medical Association JAMA Network |
| Publisher_xml | – name: American Medical Association – name: JAMA Network |
| References | Baker (zoi210959r16) 1974; 14 Wilson (zoi210959r9) 2002; 19 Prince (zoi210959r31) 2017; 7 Mendelow (zoi210959r6) 2005; 365 Wilde (zoi210959r2) 2010; 91 Krol (zoi210959r32) 2011; 25 Allanson (zoi210959r35) 2017; 27 Nelson (zoi210959r36) 2017 Andrews (zoi210959r3) 2015; 373 Edwards (zoi210959r8) 2009; 3 Langham (zoi210959r41) 2009; 40 Lilja (zoi210959r42) 2020; 150 Prigatano (zoi210959r34) 2005; 93 Kreitzer (zoi210959r37) 2019 zoi210959r12 Maas (zoi210959r11) 2015; 76 Pettigrew (zoi210959r20) 2003; 18 Ekegren (zoi210959r43) 2016; 47 Dripps (zoi210959r14) 1963; 24 Spitzer (zoi210959r24) 2006; 166 Kondiles (zoi210959r33) 2015; 3 Horton (zoi210959r1) 2018; 35 Marmarou (zoi210959r18) 2007; 24 Boase (zoi210959r40) 2021; 38 Hutchinson (zoi210959r4) 2016; 375 Steyerberg (zoi210959r13) 2019; 18 Wilson (zoi210959r19) 1998; 15 Mendelow (zoi210959r5) 2015; 32 Kroenke (zoi210959r23) 2001; 16 King (zoi210959r25) 1995; 242 Altman (zoi210959r28) 1991 Edwards (zoi210959r7) 2005; 365 Cohen (zoi210959r27) 1960; 20 Roozenbeek (zoi210959r38) 2012; 40 Acquadro (zoi210959r26) 2012 Vande Vyvere (zoi210959r15) 2019; 36 Wilcox (zoi210959r30) 2016; 69 Teasdale (zoi210959r17) 1974; 2 Ware (zoi210959r21) 2007 Wilson (zoi210959r39) 2007; 61 Wilson (zoi210959r10) 2021; 38 von Steinbüchel (zoi210959r22) 2010; 27 Fleiss (zoi210959r29) 1973; 33 |
| References_xml | – volume: 19 start-page: 999 issue: 9 year: 2002 ident: zoi210959r9 article-title: Reliability of postal questionnaires for the Glasgow Outcome Scale. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/089771502760341910 – volume: 27 start-page: 187 issue: 3 year: 2017 ident: zoi210959r35 article-title: Neuropsychological predictors of outcome following traumatic brain injury in adults: a meta-analysis. publication-title: Neuropsychol Rev doi: 10.1007/s11065-017-9353-5 – volume: 375 start-page: 1119 issue: 12 year: 2016 ident: zoi210959r4 article-title: Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. publication-title: N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1605215 – volume: 150 start-page: 104 year: 2020 ident: zoi210959r42 article-title: Protocol for outcome reporting and follow-up in the Targeted Hypothermia versus Targeted Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest trial (TTM2). publication-title: Resuscitation doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.03.004 – volume: 93 start-page: 39 year: 2005 ident: zoi210959r34 article-title: Impaired self-awareness after moderately severe to severe traumatic brain injury. publication-title: Acta Neurochir Suppl doi: 10.1007/3-211-27577-0 – volume-title: Linguistic Validation Manual for Health Outcome Assessments. year: 2012 ident: zoi210959r26 – volume: 16 start-page: 606 issue: 9 year: 2001 ident: zoi210959r23 article-title: The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. publication-title: J Gen Intern Med doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x – volume: 32 start-page: 1312 issue: 17 year: 2015 ident: zoi210959r5 article-title: Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (STITCH[Trauma]): the first randomized trial. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.2014.3644 – volume: 3 issue: 3 year: 2009 ident: zoi210959r8 article-title: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 3 start-page: 1 issue: 1 year: 2015 ident: zoi210959r33 article-title: Method of assessment and symptom reporting in veterans with mild traumatic brain injury. publication-title: Health Psychol Behav Med. doi: 10.1080/21642850.2014.966717 – volume-title: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. year: 1991 ident: zoi210959r28 – volume: 40 start-page: 1609 issue: 5 year: 2012 ident: zoi210959r38 article-title: Prediction of outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: external validation of the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models. publication-title: Crit Care Med doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824519ce – volume: 27 start-page: 1157 issue: 7 year: 2010 ident: zoi210959r22 article-title: Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI): scale validity and correlates of quality of life. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.2009.1077 – volume: 61 start-page: 123 issue: 1 year: 2007 ident: zoi210959r39 article-title: Observer variation in the assessment of outcome in traumatic brain injury: experience from a multicenter, international randomized clinical trial. publication-title: Neurosurgery doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000279732.21145.9e – ident: zoi210959r12 – volume: 76 start-page: 67 issue: 1 year: 2015 ident: zoi210959r11 article-title: Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI): a prospective longitudinal observational study. publication-title: Neurosurgery doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000575 – volume: 373 start-page: 2403 issue: 25 year: 2015 ident: zoi210959r3 article-title: Hypothermia for intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury. publication-title: N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507581 – volume: 24 start-page: 111 year: 1963 ident: zoi210959r14 article-title: New classification of physical status. publication-title: Anesthesiology. – volume: 15 start-page: 573 issue: 8 year: 1998 ident: zoi210959r19 article-title: Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.1998.15.573 – volume: 38 start-page: 2419 issue: 17 year: 2021 ident: zoi210959r40 article-title: Central curation of Glasgow Outcome Scale- Extended (GOSE) data: lessons learned from TRACK-TBI. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.2020.7528 – volume-title: User’s Manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey year: 2007 ident: zoi210959r21 – volume: 18 start-page: 923 issue: 10 year: 2019 ident: zoi210959r13 article-title: Case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in CENTER-TBI: a European prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, cohort study. publication-title: Lancet Neurol doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30232-7 – volume: 35 start-page: 2005 issue: 17 year: 2018 ident: zoi210959r1 article-title: Randomized controlled trials in adult traumatic brain injury: a systematic review on the use and reporting of clinical outcome assessments. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.5648 – volume: 36 start-page: 1080 issue: 7 year: 2019 ident: zoi210959r15 article-title: Central versus local radiological reading of acute computed tomography characteristics in multi-center traumatic brain injury research. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.6061 – year: 2017 ident: zoi210959r36 article-title: Validating multidimensional outcome assessment using the TBI Common Data Elements: an analysis of the TRACK-TBI Pilot sample. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.2017.5139 – volume: 18 start-page: 252 issue: 3 year: 2003 ident: zoi210959r20 article-title: Reliability of ratings on the Glasgow Outcome Scales from in-person and telephone structured interviews. publication-title: J Head Trauma Rehabil doi: 10.1097/00001199-200305000-00003 – volume: 242 start-page: 587 issue: 9 year: 1995 ident: zoi210959r25 article-title: The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a measure of symptoms commonly experienced after head injury and its reliability. publication-title: J Neurol doi: 10.1007/BF00868811 – volume: 7 issue: 8 year: 2017 ident: zoi210959r31 article-title: Evaluation and treatment of mild traumatic brain injury: the role of neuropsychology. publication-title: Brain Sci doi: 10.3390/brainsci7080105 – volume: 20 start-page: 37 issue: 1 year: 1960 ident: zoi210959r27 article-title: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. publication-title: Educ Psychol Meas. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104 – volume: 14 start-page: 187 issue: 3 year: 1974 ident: zoi210959r16 article-title: The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. publication-title: J Trauma doi: 10.1097/00005373-197403000-00001 – volume: 24 start-page: 239 issue: 2 year: 2007 ident: zoi210959r18 article-title: IMPACT database of traumatic brain injury: design and description. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.0036 – volume: 25 start-page: 1300 issue: 13-14 year: 2011 ident: zoi210959r32 article-title: Assessment of symptoms in a concussion management programme: method influences outcome. publication-title: Brain Inj doi: 10.3109/02699052.2011.624571 – volume: 91 start-page: 1650 issue: 11 year: 2010 ident: zoi210959r2 article-title: Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in traumatic brain injury research. publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.033 – volume: 365 start-page: 387 issue: 9457 year: 2005 ident: zoi210959r6 article-title: Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haematomas in the International Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH): a randomised trial. publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70233-6 – volume: 38 start-page: 2435 issue: 17 year: 2021 ident: zoi210959r10 article-title: A manual for the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Interview. publication-title: J Neurotrauma doi: 10.1089/neu.2020.7527 – volume: 69 start-page: 215 issue: 3 year: 2016 ident: zoi210959r30 article-title: Comparing dependent robust correlations. publication-title: Br J Math Stat Psychol doi: 10.1111/bmsp.2016.69.issue-3 – volume: 40 start-page: 111 issue: 1 year: 2009 ident: zoi210959r41 article-title: Variation in outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage: a study of neurosurgical units in UK and Ireland. publication-title: Stroke doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.517805 – volume: 365 start-page: 1957 issue: 9475 year: 2005 ident: zoi210959r7 article-title: Final results of MRC CRASH, a randomised placebo-controlled trial of intravenous corticosteroid in adults with head injury-outcomes at 6 months. publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66552-X – volume: 47 start-page: 130 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: zoi210959r43 article-title: Inter-rater agreement on assessment of outcome within a trauma registry. publication-title: Injury doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.002 – volume: 33 start-page: 613 year: 1973 ident: zoi210959r29 article-title: The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation as measures of reliability. publication-title: Educ Psychol Meas. doi: 10.1177/001316447303300309 – year: 2019 ident: zoi210959r37 article-title: A comparison of satisfaction with life and the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended after traumatic brain injury: an analysis of the TRACK-TBI pilot study. publication-title: J Head Trauma Rehabil doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000457 – volume: 2 start-page: 81 issue: 7872 year: 1974 ident: zoi210959r17 article-title: Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0 – volume: 166 start-page: 1092 issue: 10 year: 2006 ident: zoi210959r24 article-title: A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. publication-title: Arch Intern Med doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 |
| SSID | ssj0002013965 |
| Score | 2.2172112 |
| Snippet | IMPORTANCE: An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic... An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic brain injury... Importance An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic... Background: There is potentially considerable variation in the nature and duration of the care provided to hospitalised patients during an infectious disease... This cohort study compares global functional outcome ratings of the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended administered as a structured interview vs a questionnaire to... Importance: An interview is considered the gold standard method of assessing global functional outcomes in clinical trials among patients with acute traumatic... |
| SourceID | swepub pubmedcentral liege hal proquest pubmed crossref ama |
| SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | e2134121 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Aged Agreements Brain Injuries, Traumatic - rehabilitation Clinical trials Cohort Studies Female Follow-Up Studies Glasgow Outcome Scale Human health and pathology Human health sciences Humans Interviews Interviews as Topic - statistics & numerical data Life Sciences Male Middle Aged Neurology Online Only Original Investigation Outcome Assessment, Health Care - methods Patients Quality of Life Questionnaires Reproducibility of Results Sciences de la santé humaine Self report Surveys and Questionnaires - statistics & numerical data Traumatic brain injury |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: JAMA Network (Open Access) dbid: ZGVWO link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lj9MwELag5cCFN0tgQQYhTgTlYcfOMTzKHla7HKCsuFhx6ux2KSlqm_5-PttptIEKIW5R4rGc8djzjR_fEPKyzoy94WjPhbE6ZGkkQ6llFsp0Vlu6rJK7dcjpsTg5kWdn-acrl8J-38H3_ECNPxJtE0ohpEviN5h77e3xcSI45yMy_vZx-vW05xT9m9BVRtXOC12_sGcgxwu7S70PaP55XnLAKuo80eT2__3DHXKrQ5608KZyl1wzzX1y6RY80TdNiblvTbdr6tYIHUUpBaClAIi06Ok76bKmPk0AncAj-oVEetpuYLgQL2zGcQr_1zomWPrWJqBAjZfouQfky-TD53dHYZd-ISyzRGxCaXRZpkzH0YznM2bSsjIlIsisnBmHnLjMRFLzCiil0mlu6khnDDI8qkwMmPaQjJplYx4RmmtMjGkZiwrDn-lEpwIaqNNMGAYEwwJyDxpSPz3BhkqE5LmMA5LvOklVHWO5TZyxUJ5rGZHLUK_K6lU5vQYk7WV31f6L1AvYQi9gqbePimNl31nqfUSTYotCr52pqOVKz9U2ccXcc7s4V2WltFEAtVIhlgVaC8jhzqJUNz-sFWCREAJoSwTkef8ZI9tu16BxyxZleJ4xLoFQA3LgDbBvWcrgxOCmAiIGpjlo-vBLM79w7OGS2yRkqPOVN-KByPv5tMC_nKv2R6vQZVEu9xfsXn3Hk1GMCxGJx3s78Qm5afXrr28ektFm1Zqn5Ea13czXq2fdyP0FnCVKKg priority: 102 providerName: American Medical Association |
| Title | Questionnaires vs Interviews for the Assessment of Global Functional Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury |
| URI | http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34121 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34762111 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2667771517 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2596458056 https://hal.science/hal-04831497 https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/289155 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC8586906 https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-193098 http://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:148094058 |
| Volume | 4 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000717729000004&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 2574-3805 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002013965 issn: 2574-3805 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20180101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 2574-3805 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002013965 issn: 2574-3805 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20180101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 2574-3805 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002013965 issn: 2574-3805 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20180101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 2574-3805 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002013965 issn: 2574-3805 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20180101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3db9MwED_Rlgde-P4IjMogxBOBNLFj5wl1sDKk0VUISseLlaTO1lHS0TT9-7lz0kwRE0LipU0Tn-X0Lnc_n53fAbzIQkNvONK-MJ65PPCUqxIVuiqYZ0SXFQubh5weyfFYzWbRpE64FfW2yp1PtI56vkopR_4GA4mUEuOTfHvxy6WqUbS6WpfQ6ECPmMp4F3r7B-PJ5ybL4hPCCUXDNlrRDeXVDmuqT4UzRH_wGl05kYVecq3W8alzRrsje0tav74Kgv65k7LFN2pj1OjW_97dbbhZo1M2rMzpDlwz-T04t0lR1F8eo38s2LZgNo9oaUwZgl6GIJING4pPtspYVUqAjTBqVslGdlxucCgoPqSq5AxjZGnZYtk-FanAHs9Ru_fh6-jgy7tDty7R4MahLzeuMkkcBzwZeHMRzbkJ4tTEOMsM47mx6EqoUPqZSBHJpEkQmcxLQo4ywkvNAKHcA-jmq9w8AhYl6DyDeCBTdBE88ZNAomqyIJSGI8rhDtxF9eiLioRD-1KJSA0ciHbq0mnNak7FNZa64mPG2U1b4ZoUrq3CHQga2V23_yL1HK2iESB67sPhkaZzRM-PM065xUavrNHo1TpZ6K1vm9njcnmq41QnRiPwVRrnu4joHNjbmYWufUihL23CgWfNZXz6aUkHB7cqsY2IQi4UolgHHlam2Iws4BjoMJQ5IFtG2hp6-0q-OLMM40pQoTLs82Vlzi2R94vpEO_lVJc_S40q8yJ1dcP61A88MpoLKT35-O83-gRu0B9dveu5B93NujRP4Xq63SyKdR86cibtp-rXD3rf5lDw1-Tjp8kJfn__MP12_Bu6O2Lv |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V3Nb9MwFLdGiwQXvhmBAQYBp4WliR07B4QKo2q1rvQwpnEySepsHSUdbVPEP8XfyHt2kiliQlx24BYlflac_Py-bP8eIS-yUOMJR9wXxjKXBZ50ZSJDVwaTDOmyYm7ykIdDMRrJo6NovEF-VWdhcFtlpRONop7MU8yR74AhEUKAfRJvz767WDUKV1erEhoWFnv65w8I2ZZvBrvwf1_6fu_Dwfu-W1YVcOPQFytX6iSOA5Z0vAmPJkwHcapjCIzCeKKNQ8BlKPyMp2B80ySIdOYlIQMZ7qW6w5DoAFR-mwHYZYu0x4P98ec6q-OjRxXymt3U0hvldkc31sOCiNTvvAbTgeSk59yupT28coK7MdszXC-_yOX9c-dmg9_U2MTezf_ta94iN0rvm3btdLlNNnR-l5yapC_gM49B_y_peklNntTQtFJw6ik4ybRbU5jSeUZtqQTaA6_AJlPpx2IFQwfxLlZdp-ADFIYNl77DIhzQ4ymg9x75dCnDu09a-TzXDwiNEjAOQdwRKahAlvhJIAAKWRAKzcCLYw65A3BQZ5ZkRPlC8kh2HBJV8FBpydqOxUNmyvJNQ_TWBJhCgCkDMIcEtWzV7b9IPQcU1gJIP97vDhXew_IDEFGLNTTaNiBV80UyVWvfNDPXxexYxalKtALHXiqI58FjdchWBUNV6silOsegQ57Vj0G74ZIVvNy8gDY8ChmX4KU7ZNNCv36zgIEhB1PtENGYFI1Xbz7JpyeGQV1yLMQGfb6y06chsjs97MJYjlXxrVDwy7xIXtywvPUVrrRiXAhPPPz7QJ-Sa_2D_aEaDkZ7j8h1_Oj2XOsWaa0WhX5Mrqbr1XS5eFIqFkq-XPbs-w2Qb7rA |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Questionnaires+vs+Interviews+for+the+Assessment+of+Global+Functional+Outcomes+After+Traumatic+Brain+Injury&rft.jtitle=JAMA+network+open&rft.au=Horton%2C+Lindsay&rft.au=Menon%2C+David+K&rft.au=Dashiell+Gantner&rft.au=Trapani%2C+Tony&rft.date=2021-11-01&rft.pub=American+Medical+Association&rft.eissn=2574-3805&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e2134121&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001%2Fjamanetworkopen.2021.34121 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2574-3805&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2574-3805&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2574-3805&client=summon |