• Caroline M Roberts, Gershon Spitz, and Jennie L Ponsford.
• School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; and Monash-Epworth Rehabilitation Research Centre, Epworth Hospital, Richmond, Victoria, Australia.
• J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016 Mar 1; 31 (2): E71-7.

ObjectiveLimited research has been conducted comparing different methods for determining the duration of posttraumatic amnesia (PTA). This study compared prospectively recorded PTA duration (P-PTA) with retrospective reports of the return of continuous memory (R-PTA).ParticipantsFifty-nine individuals admitted to a head injury rehabilitation unit with a traumatic brain injury who had their PTA duration recorded using the Westmead Post-Traumatic Amnesia Scale. Participants were between 6 months and 6 years postinjury at the time of study.MeasuresP-PTA was determined on the basis of Westmead Post-Traumatic Amnesia Scale responses. R-PTA was ascertained using a semistructured telephone interview.ResultsAlthough the PTA measures were significantly positively correlated (r = 0.76), mean R-PTA was significantly longer than mean P-PTA. In 34 cases (57.6%), R-PTA was longer than P-PTA (13 participants moved to a higher injury severity band), and in 22 cases (37.3%), R-PTA was shorter than P-PTA (8 participants moved to a lower injury severity band). The difference between P-PTA and R-PTA was not significantly associated with age, Glasgow Coma Scale score, overall PTA duration, or the number of days postinjury of the retrospective interview.ConclusionsProspective and retrospective estimates of PTA duration were not comparable within the present sample. Further research comparing the two methods is needed.

20 keywords...

hide…