Estimating Nonfatal Traumatic Brain Injury Hospitalizations Using an Urban/Rural Index

Divergence in the epidemiological estimates of traumatic brain injury in the United States: comparison of two national databases

OBJECTIVE

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, but the true incidence of TBI is unknown.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank National Sample Program (NTDB NSP) was queried for 2007 and 2013, and population-based weighted estimates of TBI-related emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and deaths were calculated. These data were compared to the 2017 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report on TBI, which used the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National ("Nationwide" before 2012) Inpatient Sample and National Emergency Department Sample.

RESULTS

In the NTDB NSP the incidence of TBI-related ED visits was 59/100,000 in 2007 and 62/100,000 in 2013. However, in the CDC report there were 534/100,000 in 2007 and 787/100,000 in 2013. The CDC estimate for ED visits was 805% higher in 2007 and 1169% higher in 2013. In the NTDB NSP, the incidence of TBI-related deaths was 5/100,000 in 2007 and 4/100,000 in 2013. In the CDC report, the incidence was 18/100,000 in both years. The CDC estimate for deaths was 260% higher in 2007 and 325% higher in 2013.

CONCLUSIONS

The databases disagreed widely in their weighted estimates of TBI incidence: CDC estimates were consistently higher than NTDB NSP estimates, by an average of 448%. Although such a discrepancy may be intuitive, this is the first study to quantify the magnitude of disagreement between these databases. Given that research, funding, and policy decisions are made based on these estimates, there is a need for a more accurate estimate of the true national incidence of TBI.

Crash risk factors related to individuals sustaining and drivers following traumatic brain injuries

OBJECTIVE

Some crashes result in drivers experiencing (or sustaining) a traumatic brain injury (TBI) while other crashes involve drivers that have already experienced a TBI. The objective of this study is to examine the factors that influence these two TBI crash groups.

METHODS

Data from the Iowa Department of Public Health's Brain Injury Registry and Department of Transportation's crash records were linked together and used in logistic regression models to predict the likelihood of a driver sustaining a TBI in a crash and those who drive after a TBI.

RESULTS

Between 2001 and 2006, there were 2382 crashes in which an individual sustained a TBI. As expected, a higher likelihood of sustaining a TBI was observed for motorcycle drivers who did not wear a helmet and in crashes that resulted in total or disabling vehicle damage. Focusing specifically on the post-TBI drivers (and not occupants), 1583 were involved in crashes. These post-TBI drivers were less likely to wear seatbelts or have passengers in the vehicle at the time of the crash, and were more likely to crash at night. Post-TBI drivers were also involved in significantly more multiple crashes (about 14%) when compared to drivers who have not experienced a TBI (about 10%) during the study period. When controlling for gender, date of injury, and severity of TBI (using Glasgow Coma Scale), individuals that sustained a TBI when they were younger were more likely to be involved in multiple crashes.

CONCLUSIONS

Different factors influence the crash likelihood for those that sustain a TBI in a crash and those that crash following a TBI. In general, post-TBI drivers have a higher occurrence of multiple crashes and this should be further explored to guide driver rehabilitation, evaluation, and training.

Tracking the silent epidemic and educating the public: CDC's traumatic brain injury-associated activities under the TBI Act of 1996 and the Children's Health Act of 2000

The Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 1996 and the Children's Health Act of 2000 authorized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct several activities associated with traumatic brain injury. This article describes how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention responded to the legislation in 2 key areas: traumatic brain injury surveillance, and education and awareness.