Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
-
Arch Phys Med Rehabil · Nov 2010
ReviewRecommendations for the use of common outcome measures in traumatic brain injury research.
This article summarizes the selection of outcome measures by the interagency Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Outcomes Workgroup to address primary clinical research objectives, including documentation of the natural course of recovery from TBI, prediction of later outcome, measurement of treatment effects, and comparison of outcomes across studies. Consistent with other Common Data Elements Workgroups, the TBI Outcomes Workgroup adopted the standard 3-tier system in its selection of measures. ⋯ In the second tier, supplemental measures were recommended for consideration in TBI research focusing on specific topics or populations. In the third tier, emerging measures included important instruments currently under development, in the process of validation, or nearing the point of published findings that have significant potential to be superior to some older ("legacy") measures in the core and supplemental lists and may eventually replace them as evidence for their utility emerges.
-
Arch Phys Med Rehabil · Nov 2010
ReviewCommon data elements for traumatic brain injury: recommendations from the biospecimens and biomarkers working group.
Recent advances in genomics, proteomics, and biotechnology have provided unprecedented opportunities for translational research and personalized medicine. Human biospecimens and biofluids represent an important resource from which molecular data can be generated to detect and classify injury and to identify molecular mechanisms and therapeutic targets. To date, there has been considerable variability in biospecimen and biofluid collection, storage, and processing in traumatic brain injury (TBI) studies. ⋯ The aim of the Biospecimens and Biomarkers Working Group was to provide recommendations for core data elements for TBI research and develop best practice guidelines to standardize the quality and accessibility of these specimens. Consensus recommendations were developed through interactions with focus groups and input from stakeholders participating in the interagency workshop on Standardization of Data Collection in TBI and Psychological Health held in Washington, DC, in March 2009. With the adoption of these standards and best practices, future investigators will be able to obtain data across multiple studies with reduced costs and effort and accelerate the progress of genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic research in TBI.
-
Arch Phys Med Rehabil · Nov 2010
ReviewConsensus recommendations for common data elements for operational stress research and surveillance: report of a federal interagency working group.
Empirical studies and surveillance projects increasingly assess and address potentially adverse psychological health outcomes from the stress of military operations, but no standards yet exist for common concept definitions, variable categories, and measures. This article reports the consensus recommendations of the federal interagency Operational Stress Working Group for common data elements to be used in future operational stress research and surveillance with the goal of improving comparability across studies. Operational stress encompasses more than just combat; it occurs everywhere service members and their families live and work. ⋯ Recommendations for data elements are divided into 3 tiers: core, supplemental, and emerging, including variable domains and specific measures for assessing operational stressor exposures, stress outcomes, moderating factors, and mediating processes. Attention is drawn to the emerging construct of stress injury as a generic term for subclinical operational stress, and to emerging data elements addressing biological, psychological, and spiritual mediators of risk. Methodologies are needed for identifying preclinical and subclinical states of distress or dysfunction that are markers of risk for failure of role performance and future clinical mental disorders, so that targeted prevention interventions can be developed and evaluated.
-
Arch Phys Med Rehabil · Nov 2010
ReviewAdvancing integrated research in psychological health and traumatic brain injury: common data elements.
In civilian, military, and veteran populations, there is increased recognition of the interrelationship between traumatic brain injury (TBI) and some psychological health (PH) disorders and the need to better understand the relationships by integrating research for these topics. The use of different measures to assess similar study variables and/or assess outcomes may limit important advances in PH and TBI research. Without a set of common data elements (CDEs; to include variable definitions and recommended measures for the purpose of this discussion), comparison of findings across studies is challenging. ⋯ Draft recommendations were presented and discussed in the workshop "Advancing Integrated Research in Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury: Common Data Elements (CDE)" held on March 23-24, 2009, in Silver Spring, MD. The overall process leading to the workshop and subsequent recommendations by the working groups are presented in this article. Topic-driven recommendations for CDEs are presented in individual reports in this edition.
-
Arch Phys Med Rehabil · Nov 2010
ReviewCommon data elements for research on traumatic brain injury and psychological health: current status and future development.
The National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center jointly supported an effort to develop common data elements (CDEs, ie, consensus-based content domains of importance and recommended ways to measure them) for research on traumatic brain injury and psychological health. The authors served as participants in this effort as well as editors of the resulting articles. This article describes the current status of this multiagency endeavor, the obstacles encountered, and possible directions for future development. ⋯ The working groups also addressed this challenge in somewhat different ways. The CDE effort must enhance consensus among researchers with similar interests while not stifling innovation and scientific rigor. This will require regular updating of the recommendations and may benefit from more standardized criteria for the selection of important content areas and measurement tools across domains.