Treatment of developmental dyslexia: A review

Remarkably few research articles on the treatment of developmental dyslexia were published during the last 25 years. Some treatment research arose from the temporal processing theory, some from the phonological deficit hypothesis and some more from the balance model of learning to read and dyslexia. Within the framework of that model, this article reviews the aetiology of dyslexia sub-types, the neuropsychological rationale for treatment, the treatment techniques and the outcomes of treatment research. The possible mechanisms underlying the effects of treatment are discussed. © 2005 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved

Neuropsychological intervention in kindergarten children with subtyped risks of reading retardation

Kindergarten children at risk of developing language problems were administered the Florida Kindergarten Screening Battery. A principal components analysis revealed a verbal and a visual-spatial component and subsequent discriminant function analyses a high verbal/low visual-spatial group (LAL: Latent L) and a high visual-spatial/low verbal group (LAP: Latent P). LAL- and LAP-children were considered at risk for developing an L- or P-type of dyslexia, respectively. As is common practice with children suffering from manifest L- or Pdyslexia, the LAL- and LAP-kindergartners received right and left hemisphere stimulation, respectively. The outcomes were compared with those of bilateral hemispheric stimulation and no intervention. Reading tests were administered in primary school Grades 1 and 5/6; teachers' evaluation of reading took place in Grade 5/6. Overall, the LAL- and LAP- groups showed significant backwardness in word and text reading, both at early and late primary school. Types of intervention made a difference though: not significantly backward in early word, late word, and late text reading were the LAL-children who had received right hemisphere stimulation. Nonintervened LAP-children did not show significant backwardness in early word reading and late text reading, nor did LAP-children who had received left hemisphere or bilateral stimulation. Early text reading was not affected by any treatment. Teacher's evaluations were in support of these findings. Copyright © 2005 by The International Dyslexia Association®

The Post-traumatic Confusional State: A Case Definition and Diagnostic Criteria

In response to the need to better define the natural history of emerging consciousness after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to better describe the characteristics of the condition commonly labeled Post-traumatic Amnesia, a case definition and diagnostic criteria for the Post- traumatic Confusional State (PTCS) were developed. This project was completed by the Confusion Workgroup of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Interdisciplinary Special Interest group. The case definition was informed by an exhaustive literature review and expert opinion of workgroup members from multiple disciplines. The workgroup reviewed 2,466 abstracts and extracted evidence from 44 articles. Consensus was reached through teleconferences, face-to-face meetings, and three rounds of modified Delphi voting. The case definition provides detailed description of PTCS (1) core neurobehavioral features, (2) associated neurobehavioral features, (3) functional implications, (4) exclusion criteria, (5) lower boundary, and (6) criteria for emergence. Core neurobehavioral features include disturbances of attention, orientation, and memory as well as excessive fluctuation. Associated neurobehavioral features include emotional and behavioral disturbances, sleep-wake cycle disturbance, delusions, perceptual disturbances and confabulation. The lower boundary distinguishes PTCS from the minimally conscious state while upper boundary is marked by significant improvement in the four core and five associated features. Key research goals are establishment of cut-offs on assessment instruments and determination of levels of behavioral function that distinguish persons in PTCS from those who have emerged to the period of continued recovery

Disorders of Consciousness

Disorders of Consciousness are a big challenge for the entire process of rehabilitation: assessment, diagnosis, pharmacological, and rehabilitation programs, including conventional treatments and the use of new technologies

Research considerations for prospective studies of patients with coma and disorders of consciousness

Funder: National Institute on Disability; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/100006663Funder: Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/100009157Funder: NIDILRR; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009157Disorders of consciousness are neurological conditions characterized by impaired arousal and awareness of self and environment. Behavioural responses are absent or are present but fluctuate. Disorders of consciousness are commonly encountered as a consequence of both acute and chronic brain injuries, yet reliable epidemiological estimates would require inclusive, operational definitions of the concept, as well as wider knowledge dissemination among involved professionals. Whereas several manifestations have been described, including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state, a comprehensive neurobiological definition for disorders of consciousness is still lacking. The scientific literature is primarily observational, and studies-specific aetiologies lead to disorders of consciousness. Despite advances in these disease-related forms, there remains uncertainty about whether disorders of consciousness are a disease-agnostic unitary entity with a common mechanism, prognosis or treatment response paradigm. Our knowledge of disorders of consciousness has also been hampered by heterogeneity of study designs, variables, and outcomes, leading to results that are not comparable for evidence synthesis. The different backgrounds of professionals caring for patients with disorders of consciousness and the different goals at different stages of care could partly explain this variability. The Prospective Studies working group of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign was established to create a platform for observational studies and future clinical trials on disorders of consciousness and coma across the continuum of care. In this narrative review, the author panel presents limitations of prior observational clinical research and outlines practical considerations for future investigations. A narrative review format was selected to ensure that the full breadth of study design considerations could be addressed and to facilitate a future consensus-based statement (e.g. via a modified Delphi) and series of recommendations. The panel convened weekly online meetings from October 2021 to December 2022. Research considerations addressed the nosographic status of disorders of consciousness, case ascertainment and verification, selection of dependent variables, choice of covariates and measurement and analysis of outcomes and covariates, aiming to promote more homogeneous designs and practices in future observational studies. The goal of this review is to inform a broad community of professionals with different backgrounds and clinical interests to address the methodological challenges imposed by the transition of care from acute to chronic stages and to streamline data gathering for patients with disorders of consciousness. A coordinated effort will be a key to allow reliable observational data synthesis and epidemiological estimates and ultimately inform condition-modifying clinical trials

Research considerations for prospective studies of patients with coma and disorders of consciousness.

Funder: National Institute on Disability; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/100006663Funder: Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research; DOI: https://doi.org/10.13039/100009157Funder: NIDILRR; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009157Disorders of consciousness are neurological conditions characterized by impaired arousal and awareness of self and environment. Behavioural responses are absent or are present but fluctuate. Disorders of consciousness are commonly encountered as a consequence of both acute and chronic brain injuries, yet reliable epidemiological estimates would require inclusive, operational definitions of the concept, as well as wider knowledge dissemination among involved professionals. Whereas several manifestations have been described, including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state, a comprehensive neurobiological definition for disorders of consciousness is still lacking. The scientific literature is primarily observational, and studies-specific aetiologies lead to disorders of consciousness. Despite advances in these disease-related forms, there remains uncertainty about whether disorders of consciousness are a disease-agnostic unitary entity with a common mechanism, prognosis or treatment response paradigm. Our knowledge of disorders of consciousness has also been hampered by heterogeneity of study designs, variables, and outcomes, leading to results that are not comparable for evidence synthesis. The different backgrounds of professionals caring for patients with disorders of consciousness and the different goals at different stages of care could partly explain this variability. The Prospective Studies working group of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign was established to create a platform for observational studies and future clinical trials on disorders of consciousness and coma across the continuum of care. In this narrative review, the author panel presents limitations of prior observational clinical research and outlines practical considerations for future investigations. A narrative review format was selected to ensure that the full breadth of study design considerations could be addressed and to facilitate a future consensus-based statement (e.g. via a modified Delphi) and series of recommendations. The panel convened weekly online meetings from October 2021 to December 2022. Research considerations addressed the nosographic status of disorders of consciousness, case ascertainment and verification, selection of dependent variables, choice of covariates and measurement and analysis of outcomes and covariates, aiming to promote more homogeneous designs and practices in future observational studies. The goal of this review is to inform a broad community of professionals with different backgrounds and clinical interests to address the methodological challenges imposed by the transition of care from acute to chronic stages and to streamline data gathering for patients with disorders of consciousness. A coordinated effort will be a key to allow reliable observational data synthesis and epidemiological estimates and ultimately inform condition-modifying clinical trials

The Curing Coma Campaign International Survey on Coma Epidemiology, Evaluation, and Therapy (COME TOGETHER).

Funder: University of Innsbruck and Medical University of InnsbruckBACKGROUND: Although coma is commonly encountered in critical care, worldwide variability exists in diagnosis and management practices. We aimed to assess variability in coma definitions, etiologies, treatment strategies, and attitudes toward prognosis. METHODS: As part of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign, between September 2020 and January 2021, we conducted an anonymous, international, cross-sectional global survey of health care professionals caring for patients with coma and disorders of consciousness in the acute, subacute, or chronic setting. Survey responses were solicited by sequential emails distributed by international neuroscience societies and social media. Fleiss κ values were calculated to assess agreement among respondents. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 258 health care professionals from 41 countries. Respondents predominantly were physicians (n = 213, 83%), were from the United States (n = 141, 55%), and represented academic centers (n = 231, 90%). Among eight predefined items, respondents identified the following cardinal features, in various combinations, that must be present to define coma: absence of wakefulness (81%, κ = 0.764); Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≤ 8 (64%, κ = 0.588); failure to respond purposefully to visual, verbal, or tactile stimuli (60%, κ = 0.552); and inability to follow commands (58%, κ = 0.529). Reported etiologies of coma encountered included medically induced coma (24%), traumatic brain injury (24%), intracerebral hemorrhage (21%), and cardiac arrest/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (11%). The most common clinical assessment tools used for coma included the GCS (94%) and neurological examination (78%). Sixty-six percent of respondents routinely performed sedation interruption, in the absence of contraindications, for clinical coma assessments in the intensive care unit. Advanced neurological assessment techniques in comatose patients included quantitative electroencephalography (EEG)/connectivity analysis (16%), functional magnetic resonance imaging (7%), single-photon emission computerized tomography (6%), positron emission tomography (4%), invasive EEG (4%), and cerebral microdialysis (4%). The most commonly used neurostimulants included amantadine (51%), modafinil (37%), and methylphenidate (28%). The leading determinants for prognostication included etiology of coma, neurological examination findings, and neuroimaging. Fewer than 20% of respondents reported routine follow-up of coma survivors after hospital discharge; however, 86% indicated interest in future research initiatives that include postdischarge outcomes at six (85%) and 12 months (65%). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide heterogeneity among health care professionals regarding the clinical definition of coma and limited routine use of advanced coma assessment techniques in acute care settings. Coma management practices vary across sites, and mechanisms for coordinated and sustained follow-up after acute treatment are inconsistent. There is an urgent need for the development of evidence-based guidelines and a collaborative, coordinated approach to advance both the science and the practice of coma management globally

Incidence and prevalence of coma in the UK and the USA.

Funder: National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation ResearchFunder: Neurocritical Care SocietyFunder: Tiny Blue Dot FoundationFunder: James S. McDonnell FoundationThe epidemiology of coma is unknown because case ascertainment with traditional methods is difficult. Here, we used crowdsourcing methodology to estimate the incidence and prevalence of coma in the UK and the USA. We recruited UK and US laypeople (aged ≥18 years) who were nationally representative (i.e. matched for age, gender and ethnicity according to census data) of the UK and the USA, respectively, utilizing a crowdsourcing platform. We provided a description of coma and asked survey participants if they-'right now' or 'within the last year'-had a family member in coma. These participants (UK n = 994, USA n = 977) provided data on 30 387 family members (UK n = 14 124, USA n = 16 263). We found more coma cases in the USA (n = 47) than in the UK (n = 20; P = 0.009). We identified one coma case in the UK (0.007%, 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.04%) on the day of the survey and 19 new coma cases (0.13%, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.21%) within the preceding year, resulting in an annual incidence of 135/100 000 (95% confidence interval 81-210) and a point prevalence of 7 cases per 100 000 population (95% confidence interval 0.18-39.44) in the UK. We identified five cases in the USA (0.031%, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.07%) on the day of the survey and 42 new cases (0.26%, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.35%) within the preceding year, resulting in an annual incidence of 258/100 000 (95% confidence interval 186-349) and a point prevalence of 31 cases per 100 000 population (95% confidence interval 9.98-71.73) in the USA. The five most common causes were stroke, medically induced coma, COVID-19, traumatic brain injury and cardiac arrest. To summarize, for the first time, we report incidence and prevalence estimates for coma across diagnosis types and settings in the UK and the USA using crowdsourcing methods. Coma may be more prevalent in the USA than in the UK, which requires further investigation. These data are urgently needed to expand the public health perspective on coma and disorders of consciousness