The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. DESIGN: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. PARTICIPANTS: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. RESULTS: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that 'the diagnostic label 'concussion' may be used interchangeably with 'mild TBI' when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.' CONCLUSIONS: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.

The Association Between Self-Reported Cigarette Smoking and Spinal Pain is Not Explained by Serum Cotinine Levels.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to check if self-reported smoking is still associated with back pain above and beyond its association with cotinine, to test the hypothesis that the association of self-reported cigarette smoking with back pain is due to residual confounding. METHODS: Secondary analyses of population-based cross-sectional data pertaining to 4470 adults were conducted. In multivariate analyses examining the associations of self-reported smoking with several spinal pain outcomes (neck pain, low back pain, low back pain with pain below knee, self-reported diagnosis of arthritis/rheumatism, and related limitations), further adjustment for serum cotinine concentrations was made. RESULTS: Self-reported cigarette smoking was associated with neck pain (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) Regular smokers vs. Non-smokers: 1.44; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.14-1.82), low back pain (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.24-1.78), low back pain with pain below knee (aOR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.42-2.76), as well as arthritis/rheumatism (aOR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03-1.71), and related functional limitations (P < .05). Further adjustment for serum cotinine concentrations brought about little change in the ORs or beta coefficients. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the hypothesis that serum cotinine concentrations explain the well-known relationship between cigarette smoking and spinal pain.

Evaluating trauma center structural performance: The experience of a Canadian provincial trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Indicators of structure, process, and outcome are required to evaluate the performance of trauma centers to improve the quality and efficiency of care. While periodic external accreditation visits are part of most trauma systems, a quantitative indicator of structural performance has yet to be proposed. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a trauma center structural performance indicator using accreditation report data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analyses were based on accreditation reports completed during on-site visits in the Quebec trauma system (1994-2005). Qualitative report data was retrospectively transposed onto an evaluation grid and the weighted average of grid items was used to quantify performance. The indicator of structural performance was evaluated in terms of test-retest reliability (kappa statistic), discrimination between centers (coefficient of variation), content validity (correlation with accreditation decision, designation level, and patient volume) and forecasting (correlation between visits performed in 1994-1999 and 1998-2005). RESULTS: Kappa statistics were >0.8 for 66 of the 73 (90%) grid items. Mean structural performance score over 59 trauma centers was 47.4 (95% CI: 43.6-51.1). Two centers were flagged as outliers and the coefficient of variation was 31.2% (95% CI: 25.5% to 37.6%), showing good discrimination. Correlation coefficients of associations with accreditation decision, designation level, and volume were all statistically significant (r = 0.61, -0.40, and 0.24, respectively). No correlation was observed over time (r = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of quantifying trauma center structural performance using accreditation reports. The proposed performance indicator shows good test-retest reliability, between-center discrimination, and construct validity. The observed variability in structural performance across centers and over-time underlines the importance of evaluating structural performance in trauma systems at regular intervals to drive quality improvement efforts.