The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

Economics, Psychology, and Social Dynamics of Consumer Bidding in Auctions

With increasing numbers of consumers in auction marketplaces, we highlight some recent approaches that bring additional economic, social, and psychological factors to bear on existing economic theory to better understand and explain consumers' behavior in auctions. We also highlight specific research streams that could contribute towards enriching existing economic models of bidding behavior in emerging market mechanisms.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47034/1/11002_2005_Article_5901.pd

The challenge of obtaining distribution for me-too follower brands

This article examines the decision of retail buyers to adopt or reject ‘me-too follower’ brands. By definition such brands follow the pioneer in entry order, and hence are typically viewed more negatively by retail buyers. Retailers classify most new brands offered by sellers as me-too followers, yet there has been little research detailing, and exploring ways to overcome, the challenges these brands face. Our study examines a series of hypotheses which address, and suggest appropriate strategies to minimize, the me-too follower disadvantage in gaining distribution. A survey of 145 US retail buyers was conducted to test these hypotheses

Doctoral coursework is needed in Australasia

The formal structure of most Australasian marketing doctoral programs is still thesis-only. This Commentary presents the perspective that this structure is not ideal for today’s academic environment. We argue for the importance of coursework in a doctoral student’s education. The argument should be relevant to all thesis-only social science and business doctoral programs, but our focus is on the case of marketing in Australasia. Students having coursework may develop stronger research skills than thesis-only students, thus thesis-only students would generally be at a disadvantage in terms of achieving publication in higher-ranking international journals. Coursework clearly helps to broaden and deepen a student’s knowledge of research methods, but it also helps with the subtle and tacit skills of judging research quality

Pioneer brand advantage and consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and propositional inventory

What are the behavioral origins of pioneer brand advantage? This article provides an integrative conceptual framework and propositional inventory to help more fully understand this multifaceted phenomenon. It is proposed that there are three sources of entry-order information that work through various psychological processes and affect multiple decision process variables. The conceptual framework translates into eight testable propositions. New exploratory evidence is presented. Managerial implications are discussed

Corporate claims as innovator or market leader: impact on overall attitude and quality perceptions and transfer to company brands

The research described in this paper examines two corporate ability (CA)associations at both company and product perception levels through the use of two category exemplar cues, market leadership and market pioneership. The research investigates the directionality and degree to which company claims as being either a market leader or pioneer impact upon consumers' perceptions of the company and also the products produced by the company. Results show that describing a company as a pioneer or market leader leads to a more favorable attitude toward the company but does not trickle down to its products. In addition, it has (as hypothesized) no impact on quality perceptions. In addition, it was shown that when a company is designated as a market leader it is significantly more likely to be perceived as having the potential to introduce the market leading brand in a new category relative to when no such designation is made. No evidence was found that a designation as an innovative company leads to the perception that the company can pioneer a new category. The managerial implications of these findings are discussed