Structured Abstract

Contents

• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
  • Background
  • Decisional Dilemmas
  • Focus of Review
  • Key Questions
• Methods
  • Topic Refinement
  • Search Strategy
  • Triage and Screening
  • Data Extraction
  • Risk of Bias
  • Data Synthesis
  • Grading the Evidence
  • Assessing Applicability
• Results
  • Previous Systematic Reviews
  • Description of Eligible Studies
  • Key Question 1 How have studies characterized multidisciplinary postacute rehabilitation for TBI in adults?
  • Key Question 2 What is the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of multidisciplinary postacute rehabilitation for TBI?
  • Key Question 3 What evidence exists to establish a minimum clinically important difference in community reintegration as measured by the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) for postacute rehabilitation for TBI in adults?
  • Key Question 4 Are improvements in outcomes achieved via multidisciplinary postacute rehabilitation for TBI sustained over time?
  • Key Question 5 What adverse effects are associated with multidisciplinary postacute rehabilitation for TBI?
• Summary and Discussion
  • Summary of Findings
  • Limitations of the Evidence
• Future Research
• References
• Acronyms and Abbreviations
• Appendix A Search Strategy
• Appendix B Risk of Bias
• Appendix C Excluded Studies
• Appendix D Secondary Outcomes
• Appendix E Evidence Tables
• Appendix F References to Appendixes

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services¹, Contract No. 290-2007-10064-I, Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, MN

Suggested citation:

Brasure M, Lamberty GJ, Sayer NA, Nelson NW, MacDonald R, Ouellette J, Tacklind J, Grove M, Rutks IR, Butler ME, Kane RL, Wilt TJ. Multidisciplinary Postacute Rehabilitation for Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in Adults. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10064-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC101-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10064-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www​.ahrq.gov