Abo Bibliothek: Guest
Digitales Portal Digitale Bibliothek eBooks Zeitschriften Referenzen und Berichte Forschungssammlungen
Critical Reviews™ in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

ISSN Druckformat: 0896-2960
ISSN Online: 2162-6553

Critical Reviews™ in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.2016016958
pages 233-250

Mood and Anxiety in Concussion and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI): A Systematic Review

Lilianne Rothschild
Gustavus Adolphus College, Saint Peter, Minnesota, USA
Arthur C. Maerlender
Center for Brain, Biology and Behavior, University of Nebraska−Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Todd Caze
Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska−Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Kate Higgins
Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska−Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

ABSTRAKT

Objectives: Understanding the relationship between mood/anxiety and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is recognized as necessary, although slow to gain acceptance in practice. We hypothesized that the relevant literature was disjointed and unrelated. Such a state could contribute to a lack of wider acceptance and implementation. Thus we sought to analyze the literature on this topic, and demonstrate the relationships (or lack thereof) through a citation network. Evidence review: PubMed, Academic Search Premier, and PsycINFO were searched for peer-reviewed articles involving concussion, mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), mood, or anxiety published between January 2005 and June 2015. Studies resulting from the exclusion process were rated for quality using a newly developed scale (Quality of Literature Assessment: QoLA), and incorporated into a citation network to determine interrelationships among studies. Findings: Twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. The QoLA identified 16 of moderate quality and none of strong quality; the remaining eight studies were rated as weak. Interrater reliability of the QoLA was acceptable (ICC=.754, p=.04), and rater judgment of quality matched the empirical scale (Pearson r=.73, p<.001). Conclusions: Inspection of the quality ratings (QoLA) pointed to inadequate methodologies in most studies. Additionally, network analysis demonstrated little overlap of citations, indicating lack of scaffolding of findings that is a hallmark of mature science.