Objective

Our objective was to (1) evaluate the linguistic and cultural acceptability of a Spanish translation of the Ohio State University traumatic brain injury identification method (OSU TBI-ID) and (2) to assess the usability and acceptability of a tablet-based version of this instrument in a cohort of Spanish-dominant older adults.

Setting

University clinical research center and local community center.

Participants

Community-dwelling Spanish-dominant adults age 50 years or older without dementia residing in the Bay Area of California (N=22).

Design

Cross-sectional cohort study.

Main outcome measures

Qualitative assessment of linguistic or cultural acceptability of a Spanish translation of the OSU TBI-ID as well as usability or acceptability of a tablet-based self-administered version of this instrument.

Results

The Spanish translation had high linguistic and cultural acceptability and was further optimized based on participant feedback. Cognitive interviews to review survey wording revealed high levels of homogeneity in the clinical definitions and synonyms given by participants-for example, results for the clinical term "Quedó Inconsciente/Pérdida (temporal) de la conciencia" (To be unconscious/[Temporary] loss of consciousness) used in the survey included "perder el conocimiento" (loss of consciousness), "knockeado" (knocked out), "No es que esté dormida, porque está inconsciente, pero su corazón está todavía palpitando" (it's not that they're sleeping, because they're unconscious, but their heart is still palpitating). The tablet interface had low observer-based usability, revealing that participants with <13 years of education (n=6) had more difficulty using the tablet which could be improved with minor changes to the coding of the application and minimal in-person technology support. Acceptability of the tool was low among all but 1 participant.

Conclusion

This linguistically optimized Spanish translation of the OSU TBI-ID is recommended for use as a semistructured interview among Spanish-dominant older adults. Although the tablet-based instrument may be used by interviewers as an efficient electronic case report form among older adults, further research is needed, particularly among older adults with varying levels of education, to validate this instrument as a self-administered survey.

Background

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an established risk factor for dementia but mechanisms are uncertain. Accurate TBI exposure classification is critical for cognitive aging research studies seeking to discover mechanisms and treatments of post-TBI dementia. Brief TBI screens, commonly used in epidemiological studies of cognitive aging, are insensitive, leading to exposure mis-classification. Comprehensive TBI interviews, while more sensitive, may be impractical.

Objective

We aimed to develop and validate a scalable, self-administered, comprehensive, web-based, TBI exposure survey for use in international cognitive aging research.

Methods

We adapted a gold-standard comprehensive TBI interview (the Ohio State University TBI Identification Method; OSU TBI-ID) into a self-administered web-based survey for older adults (Older Adult modification of the OSU TBI-ID; OA OSU TBI-ID). We assessed reliability of our web-based survey versus the gold-standard interview among 97 older adults with normal cognition and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In addition, we assessed sensitivity of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (NACC UDS) brief TBI screen versus the interview among 70 older adults with normal cognition.

Results

Our OA OSU TBI-ID web-based survey had good to excellent reliability versus the interview (κ 0.66-0.73; ICCs 0.68-0.81) even among the sub-set with MCI (κ 0.74-0.88; ICCs 0.76-0.85), except for several age-at-injury variables. The NACC UDS brief TBI screen missed 50% of TBI exposures identified using the OSU TBI-ID interview.

Conclusion

The OSU TBI-ID interview and web-based survey may facilitate more accurate TBI exposure classification in cognitive aging research thereby accelerating discovery of targetable mechanisms of post-TBI dementia.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health problem that affects the long-term cognitive, physical, and psychological health of patients, while also having a major impact on family and caregivers. In stark contrast to the effective trials that have been conducted in other neurological diseases, nearly 30 studies of interventions employed during acute hospital care for TBI have failed to identify treatments that improve outcome. Many factors may confound the ability to detect true and meaningful treatment effects. One promising area for improving the precision of intervention studies is to optimize the validity of the outcome assessment battery by using well-designed tools and data collection strategies to reduce variability in the outcome data. The Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study, conducted at 18 sites across the United States, implemented a multidimensional outcome assessment battery with 22 measures aimed at characterizing TBI outcome up to 1 year postinjury. In parallel, through the TBI Endpoints Development (TED) Initiative, federal agencies and investigators have partnered to identify the most valid, reliable, and sensitive outcome assessments for TBI. Here, we present lessons learned from the TRACK-TBI and TED initiatives aimed at optimizing the validity of outcome assessment in TBI.

Systemic inflammation impacts outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI), but most TBI biomarker studies have focused on brain-specific proteins. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a widely used biomarker of inflammation with potential as a prognostic biomarker after TBI. The Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) study prospectively enrolled TBI patients within 24 h of injury, as well as orthopedic injury and uninjured controls; biospecimens were collected at enrollment. A subset of hospitalized participants had blood collected on day 3, day 5, and 2 weeks. High-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) were measured. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the prognostic ability of hsCRP for 6-month outcome, using the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE). We included 1206 TBI subjects, 122 orthopedic trauma controls (OTCs), and 209 healthy controls (HCs). Longitudinal biomarker sampling was performed in 254 hospitalized TBI subjects and 19 OTCs. hsCRP rose between days 1 and 5 for TBI and OTC subjects, and fell by 2 weeks, but remained elevated compared with HCs (p < 0.001). Longitudinally, hsCRP was significantly higher in the first 2 weeks for subjects with death/severe disability (GOSE <5) compared with those with moderate disability/good recovery (GOSE ≥5); AUC was highest at 2 weeks (AUC = 0.892). Combining hsCRP and GFAP at 2 weeks produced AUC = 0.939 for prediction of disability. Serum hsCRP measured within 2 weeks of TBI is a prognostic biomarker for disability 6 months later. hsCRP may have utility as a biomarker of target engagement for anti-inflammatory therapies.

Identifying the principal determinants of life satisfaction following mild TBI (mTBI) may inform efforts to improve subjective well-being in this population. We examined life satisfaction among participants in the Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) study who presented with mTBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score = 13-15; n = 1152). An L1-regularization path algorithm was used to select optimal sets of baseline and concurrent symptom measures for prediction of scores on the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) at 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months post-injury. Multi-variable linear regression models (all n = 744-894) were then fit to evaluate associations between the empirically selected predictors and SWLS scores at each follow-up visit. Results indicated that emotional post-TBI symptoms (all b = -1.27 to -0.77, all p < 0.05), anhedonia (all b = -1.59 to -1.08, all p < 0.01), and pain interference (all b = -1.38 to -0.89, all p < 0.001) contributed to the prediction of lower SWLS scores at all follow-ups. Insomnia predicted lower SWLS scores at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months (all b = -1.11 to -0.83, all ps < 0.01); and negative affect predicted lower SWLS scores at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months (all b = -1.38 to -0.80, all p < 0.005). Other post-TBI symptom domains and baseline socio-demographic, injury-related, and clinical characteristics did not emerge as robust predictors of SWLS scores during the year after mTBI. Efforts to improve satisfaction with life following mTBI may benefit from a focus on the detection and treatment of affective symptoms, pain, and insomnia. The results reinforce the need for tailoring of evidence-based treatments for these conditions to maximize efficacy in patients with mTBI.

It is important to measure quality of life (QoL) after traumatic brain injury (TBI), yet limited studies have compared QoL inventories. In 2579 TBI patients, orthopedic trauma controls, and healthy friend control participants, we compared the Quality of Life After Brain Injury-Overall Scale (QOLIBRI-OS), developed for TBI patients, to the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), an index of generic life satisfaction. We tested the hypothesis that group differences (TBI and orthopedic trauma vs. healthy friend controls) would be larger for the QOLIBRI-OS than the SWLS and that the QOLIBRI-OS would manifest more substantial changes over time in the injured groups, demonstrating more relevance of the QOLIBRI-OS to traumatic injury recovery. (1) We compared the group differences (TBI vs. orthopedic trauma control vs. friend control) in QoL as indexed by the SWLS versus the QOLIBRI-OS and (2) characterized changes across time in these two inventories across 1 year in these three groups. Our secondary objective was to characterize the relationship between TBI severity and QoL. As compared with healthy friend controls, the QOLIBRI reflected greater reductions in QoL than the SWLS for both the TBI group (all time points) and the orthopedic trauma control group (2 weeks and 3 months). The QOLIBRI-OS better captured expected improvements in QoL during the injury recovery course in injured groups than the SWLS, which demonstrated smaller changes over time. TBI severity was not consistently or robustly associated with self-reported QoL. The findings imply that, as compared with the SWLS, the QOLIBRI-OS appears to identify QoL issues more specifically relevant to traumatically injured patients and may be a more appropriate primary QoL outcome measure for research focused on the sequelae of traumatic injuries.

The Glasgow Outcome Scale, Pediatric Revision (GOSE-P) is an assessment of "global outcome" designed as a developmentally appropriate version of the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended for use in clinical trials of children with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Initial testing describes validity across a wide age and injury severity spectrum, yet the GOSE-P's utility for monitoring children with milder injuries is less clear. We examined the level of agreement between the GOSE-P and the Health and Behavior Inventory (HBI), a TBI-related symptom checklist used to assess children with mild TBI for clinical and research purposes. Participants included children and adolescents 3-16 years of age (n = 50) who presented to two level 1 trauma centers within 24 h of injury, with a GCS of 13-15, who underwent clinical neuroimaging. Outcome was assessed 2 weeks and 3 months following injury. We examined the severity of TBI-related symptoms across disability categories identified using the GOSE-P, and the level of agreement between the two measures in identifying deficits 2 weeks following injury and improvement from 2 weeks to 3 months. Using the GOSE-P, 62% had deficits at 2 weeks, and 42% improved from 2 weeks to 3 months. Agreement between the GOSE-P and HBI was fair 2 weeks after TBI (k = 0.24-0.33), and poor for identifying subsequent improvement (k = 0.10-0.16). Modest agreement between the GOSE-P and the HBI may reflect restricted participation from diverse causes, including TBI, other bodily injuries, and prescribed activity restrictions, and highlights the need for multi-dimensional outcome batteries.

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) in its original or extended (GOSE) form is the most widely used assessment of global disability in traumatic brain injury (TBI) research. Several publications have reported concerns about assessor scoring inconsistencies, but without documentation of contributing factors. We reviewed 6801 GOSE assessments collected longitudinally, across 18 sites in the 5-year, observational Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study. We recorded error rates (i.e., corrections to a section or an overall rating) based on site assessor documentation and categorized scoring issues, which then informed further training. In cohort 1 (n = 1261; February 2014 to May 2016), 24% of GOSEs had errors identified by central review. In cohort 2 (n = 1130; June 2016 to July 2018), acquired after curation of cohort 1 data, feedback, and further training of site assessors, the error rate was reduced to 10%. GOSE sections associated with the most frequent interpretation and scoring difficulties included whether current functioning represented a change from pre-injury (466 corrected ratings in cohort 1; 62 in cohort 2), defining dependency in the home and community (163 corrections in cohort 1; three in cohort 2) and return to work/school (72 corrections in cohort 1; 35 in cohort 2). These results highlight the importance of central review in improving consistency across sites and over time. Establishing clear scoring criteria, coupled with ongoing guidance and feedback to data collectors, is essential to avoid scoring errors and resultant misclassification, which carry potential to result in "failure" of clinical trials that rely on the GOSE as their primary outcome measure.

Our objective was to examine the construct validity of the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT) and its relationship to traumatic brain injury (TBI) of differing severities. Data were analyzed on 1422 patients with TBI and 170 orthopedic trauma controls (OTC) from the multi-center Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study. Participants were assessed at 6 months post-injury with the BTACT and an in-person neuropsychological battery. We examined the BTACT's factor structure, factorial group invariance, convergent and discriminant validity, and relationship to TBI and TBI severity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported both a 1-factor model and a 2-factor model comprising correlated Episodic Memory and Executive Function (EF) factors. Both models demonstrated strict invariance across TBI severity and OTC groups. Correlations between BTACT and criterion measures suggested that the BTACT memory indices predominantly reflect verbal episodic memory, whereas the BTACT EF factor correlated with a diverse range of cognitive tests. Although the EF factor and other BTACT indices showed significant relationships with TBI and TBI severity, some group effect sizes were larger for more comprehensive in-person cognitive tests than the BTACT. The BTACT is a promising, brief, phone-based cognitive screening tool for patients with TBI. Although the BTACT's memory items appear to index verbal Episodic Memory, items that purport to assess EFs may reflect a broader array of cognitive domains. The sensitivity of the BTACT to TBI severity is lower than domain-specific neuropsychological measures, suggesting it should not be used as a substitute for comprehensive, in-person cognitive testing at 6 months post-TBI.

Missing data is a persistent and unavoidable problem in even the most carefully designed traumatic brain injury (TBI) clinical research. Missing data patterns may result from participant dropout, non-compliance, technical issues, or even death. This review describes the types of missing data that are common in TBI research, and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the statistical approaches used to draw conclusions and make clinical decisions from these data. We review recent innovations in missing values analysis (MVA), a relatively new branch of statistics, as applied to clinical TBI data. Our discussion focuses on studies from the International Traumatic Brain Injury Research (InTBIR) initiative project: Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI), Collaborative Research on Acute TBI in Intensive Care Medicine in Europe (CREACTIVE), and Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI Trial (ADAPT). In addition, using data from the TRACK-TBI pilot study (n = 586) and the completed clinical trial assessing valproate (VPA) for the treatment of post-traumatic epilepsy (n = 379) we present real-world examples of typical missing data patterns and the application of statistical techniques to mitigate the impact of missing data in order to draw sound conclusions from ongoing clinical studies.