Canadian

Psychiatric Association

Association des psychiatres

In Review Series du Canada

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry /

La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie
A Systematic Review of Psychiatric, 2016, Vol. 61(5) 259-269
ª The Author(s) 2016
Psychological, and Behavioural Outcomes Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0706743716643741
following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury TheCJP.ca | LaRCP.ca

in Children and Adolescents

Une revue systématique des résultats psychiatriques,
psychologiques et comportementaux par suite d’un traumatisme
cranio-cérébral bénin chez les enfants et les adolescents

Carolyn A. Emery, PT, PhD1,2, Karen M. Barlow, MRCP, MRCPCH1,

Brian L. Brooks, RPsych, PhD1, Jeffrey E. Max, MBBCh3,4,
Angela Villavicencio-Requis, BSc1, Vithya Gnanakumar, MD1,
Helen Lee Robertson, MLIS5, Kathryn Schneider, PT, PhD1,2,
and Keith Owen Yeates, PhD1,2

Abstract
Background: Evidence regarding longer-term psychiatric, psychological, and behavioural outcomes (for example, anxiety,
mood disorders, depression, and attention disorders) following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in children and adolescents
has not been previously synthesized.
Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the available evidence examining psychiatric, psychological, and behavioural
outcomes following mTBI in children and adolescents.
Materials and Methods: Nine electronic databases were systematically searched from 1980 to August 2014. Studies
selected met the following criteria: original data; study design was a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental design,
cohort or historical cohort study, case-control study, or cross-sectional study; exposure included mTBI (including concus-
sion); population included children and adolescents (<19 years) at the time of mTBI, as well as a comparison group (for
example, healthy children, children with orthopaedic injuries); and included psychiatric, psychological, or behavioural out-
comes (for example, anxiety, mood disorders, depression, attention disorders). Two authors independently assessed the
quality and level of evidence with the Downs and Black (DB) criteria and Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine
(OCEBM) model, respectively, for each manuscript.
Results: Of 9472 studies identified in the initial search, 30 were included and scored. Heterogeneity in methodology and
injury definition precluded meta-analyses. The median methodological quality for all 30 studies, based on the DB criteria, was
15/33 (range 6 to 19). The highest level of evidence demonstrated by all reviewed studies was level 2b based on OCEBM
criteria, with the majority (28/30 studies) classified at this level. Based on the literature included in this systematic review,
psychological and psychiatric problems in children with a history of mTBI were found to be more prevalent when mTBI is

1
Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
2
Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
3
Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, California, USA
4
Neuropsychiatric Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, California, USA
5
Health Sciences Library, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Carolyn A. Emery, PT, PhD University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N1N4, Canada.
Email: caemery@ucalgary.ca
260 The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 61(5)

associated with hospitalization, when assessment occurs earlier in the recovery period (that is, resolves over time), when
there are multiple previous mTBIs, in individuals with preexisting psychiatric illness, when outcomes are based on retro-
spective recall, and when the comparison group is noninjured healthy children (as opposed to children with injuries not
involving the head).
Conclusions: Overall, few rigorous prospective studies have examined psychological, behavioural, and psychiatric outcomes
following mTBI. In the absence of true reports of preinjury problems and when ideally comparing mild TBI to non-TBI injured
controls, there is little evidence to suggest that psychological, behavioural, and/or psychiatric problems persist beyond the
acute and subacute period following an mTBI in children and adolescents.

Abrégé
Contexte : Les données probantes concernant les résultats psychiatriques, psychologiques et comportementaux à long
terme (p. ex., l’anxiété, les troubles de l’humeur, la dépression, et les troubles de l’attention) par suite d’un traumatisme
cranio-cérébral bénin (TCCb) chez les enfants et les adolescents n’ont pas été synthétisées antérieurement.
Objectif : Mener une revue systématique des données probantes disponibles qui examinent les résultats psychiatriques,
psychologiques et comportementaux d’un TCCb chez les enfants et les adolescents.
Matériel et méthodes : Neuf bases de données électroniques ont été systématiquement recherchées de 1980 au mois
d’août 2014. Les études retenues satisfaisaient aux critères suivants: des données originales; la méthode de l’étude était un
essai randomisé contrôlé, une méthode quasi-expérimentale, une étude de cohorte ou de cohorte historique, une étude cas-
témoin ou transversale; l’exposition incluse dans le TCCb (y compris la commotion); la population comprenait des enfants et
adolescents (< 19 ans) au moment du TCCb, ainsi qu’un groupe de comparaison (p. ex., des enfants en santé; des enfants ayant
des blessures orthopédiques); et comprenait des résultats psychiatriques, psychologiques ou comportementaux (p. ex.,
l’anxiété, les troubles de l’humeur, la dépression, et les troubles de l’attention). Deux auteurs ont évalué indépendamment la
qualité et le niveau des données probantes à l’aide des critères de Downs et Black (DB) et du modèle Oxford Centre of
Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM), respectivement, pour chaque manuscrit.
Résultats : Sur les 9 472 études repérées dans la recherche initiale, 30 ont été incluses et notées. L’hétérogénéité de la
méthodologie et la définition du traumatisme excluaient les méta-analyses. La qualité méthodologique moyenne pour les 30
études, selon les critères DB, était de 15/33 (écart 6-19). Le niveau le plus élevé des données probantes démontré par toutes les
études examinées était le niveau 2b, selon les critères de l’OCEBM, la majorité des études (28/30) étant classées à ce niveau.
D’après la littérature incluse dans cette revue systématique, les problèmes psychiatriques et psychologiques des enfants ayant des
antécédents de TCCb se sont révélés plus prévalents quand le TCCb est associé à une hospitalisation, quand l’évaluation a lieu
plus tôt dans la période de rétablissement (c.-à-d., qui se résout avec le temps), quand il y a de multiples TCCb passés, chez des
personnes souffrant d’une maladie psychiatrique préexistante, quand les résultats sont basés sur la mémoire rétrospective, et
quand le groupe de comparaison est formé d’enfants en santé non blessés (par opposition aux enfants blessés mais non à la tête).
Conclusions : En général, peu d’études prospectives rigoureuses ont examiné les résultats psychologiques, comporte-
mentaux et psychiatriques d’un TCCb. En l’absence de rapports fiables de problèmes pré-traumatisme et en comparant
idéalement des sujets ayant subi un TCCb avec des témoins n’ayant pas subi de TCC, il y a peu de données probantes qui
suggèrent que les problèmes psychologiques, comportementaux et/ou psychiatriques persistent au-delà de la période aiguë et
subaiguë suivant un TCCb chez les enfants et les adolescents.

Keywords
mild traumatic brain injury, concussion, psychological outcomes, psychiatric outcomes, behaviour outcomes

Background 10% to 20% of hockey players aged 9 to 17 years report at

Mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI), including concus-
sions, are very common in children and adolescents and
therefore pose a significant public health burden. Annually,
at least 700 000 youth ages 0 to 19 years seek hospital-based
medical care for TBI in the United States, and 80% to 90% of
these injuries are mild in severity.1 No comparable figures
are available for mTBI in Canada, but data from 8 Canadian
pediatric emergency departments indicate that 1 out of every
70 to 220 visits is for concussion.2,3 Moreover, more than
500,000 youth are registered hockey players in Canada, and
least 1 head injury annually.4-6 Thus, mTBI likely affects
thousands of Canadian children each year.
It can be difficult to detect and diagnose mTBI. They are
typically defined as injuries to the brain resulting from exter-
nal physical forces and identified clinically by Glasgow
Coma Scale scores of 13 to 15, disorientation or other mental
status changes, loss of consciousness for no longer than 30
minutes, and/or posttraumatic amnesia lasting no longer than
24 hours.7 They may be associated with visible lesions on
neuroimaging but most commonly are not. 8 Common
La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie 61(5)
mechanisms of mTBI in children and adolescents include
sport and recreation–related injury (typically referred to as
sport-related concussion), falls, and motor vehicle
collision.9
The outcomes of mTBI in children and adolescents have
historically been controversial.10,11 Research on outcomes is
imperative given the decreasing rate of hospitalization
among children with mTBI.12 This trend places a substantial
burden on health care providers in emergency medicine and
outpatient care settings to make evidence-based decisions
regarding the management of mTBI in children and adoles-
cents.13 Accurate information about outcomes is of para-
mount importance for this purpose.
Although long-term deficits on standardized cognitive
testing are rare following mTBI,14,15 several prospective
cohort studies have shown that children with mTBI display
persistent postconcussive symptoms (PCS) as compared
with children with other types of injuries. PCS involve a
variety of cognitive, somatic, behavioural, and emotional
complaints, the most common of which include headaches,
dizziness, poor concentration or memory, and moodiness.
Although in most cases symptoms resolve during the first
few weeks following injury, they can persist for months and
sometimes years in some children. In 2 large prospective
cohort studies in Alberta, 12% to 14% of children sustaining
mTBI still displayed symptoms 3 months following
injury.16,17
In contrast, the extent to which mTBI results in psycho-
pathology more generally, and specifically in new-onset psy-
chiatric disorders, remains uncertain. In previous studies, the
rate of psychiatric disorders in children with mTBI has var-
ied widely (between 10% and 100%) depending on study
design.18-34 The range of new-onset disorders reported in the
subset of studies that consecutively recruited children with
mTBI is narrower.18-29 However, many previous studies
have not included control groups. Thus, the relative risk for
new-onset psychiatric disorder among children with mTBI
as compared to children with injuries not involving the head
or to healthy controls is not clear.
Most previous studies have also not assessed psychiatric
outcomes in depth. Assessment using semistructured inter-
views with parent and child, supplemented by input from
collateral sources such as school teachers, provides a ‘‘best
estimate’’ diagnosis that is considered the gold standard for
psychiatric evaluation.35 Few studies of pediatric mTBI have
followed this procedure. Instead, the measurement of psy-
chiatric and behavioural outcomes after mTBI has often
been limited to questionnaires and rating scales, typically
completed only by parents. Comprehensive reviews of
psychiatric, psychological, and behavioural outcomes
must necessarily encompass such studies despite their
limitations.
Previous systematic reviews have examined psychosocial
outcomes after paediatric TBI,36,37 but they have encom-
passed the entire spectrum of TBI injury severity including
adult populations. We are aware of only 1 previous
261
systematic review in the literature regarding psychiatric,
psychological, and behavioural outcomes specifically in
children with mTBI.38 That review was limited to 6 papers
published from 2001 to 2012 that met specific eligibility
criteria and were judged to be scientifically acceptable based
on judgments of likelihood of bias. The authors conceded the
limited evidence base in their review but concluded that
most children with mTBI demonstrate a good prognosis,
despite acknowledging that 3 studies concerned with psy-
chiatric outcomes found a positive association between
childhood mTBI and subsequent psychiatric diagnoses.
The objective of the current systematic review was to
synthesize the available evidence regarding psychiatric, psy-
chological, and behavioural outcomes following mTBI in
children and adolescents. We intended to build on Keight-
ley’s (2014)38 previous review by searching for all relevant
studies published from 1980 to August 2014 that met a priori
criteria and including all identified studies without restric-
tions based on judgments of risk of bias. Instead, we incor-
porated all studies meeting our inclusion criteria but assessed
the quality and level of evidence for each. The current
review adds to the literature by reporting on a broader range
of studies than summarized by Keightley and her col-
leagues,38 thereby providing a more comprehensive picture
of the extant evidence base.
Methods
The review was conducted according to the PRISMA
guidelines.39
Data Sources and Search
Relevant studies were identified by searching OVID MED-
LINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, PsycINFO, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL,
ERIC, and Web of Science. All searches were conducted
on August 15, 2014, using a combination of subject headings
and text words (Table 1), with results limited to publication
dates between 1990 and 2014 and to English language.
To be included in this systematic review, the published
manuscript needed to contain all necessary data, as
authors were not contacted for additional data or
clarification.
Study Selection
We used the following inclusion criteria: 1) The study design
included randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental
design, cohort or historical cohort study, case-control study,
or cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses
were used to identify additional relevant studies. 2) Children/
adolescents were <19 years of age at the time they sustained
the mTBI. 3) Brain injury severity studied was restricted to
mTBI (although varying definitions were accepted, including
traditional definitions such as a postresuscitation Glasgow
262 The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 61(5)

Table 1. Evaluation of Psychiatric, Psychological, and Behavioural Outcomes Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) in Children and
Adolescents: Search Results of a Systematic Review.

MEDLINE EMBASE Cochrane PsycINFO PubMed CINAHL ERIC SPORTDiscus WoS

mTBI 157 829 358 560 240 37 042 — 67 063 5758 6868 101 431
Psychiatric, etc. 953 102 1 410 394 3081 769 053 — 450 572 121 386 63 442 1 173 453
Pediatric 2 798 187 2 693 621 4492 690 — 691 292 92 904 137 093 1 506 614
mTBI and psychiatric and 3472 6723 63 690 492 3878 5250 364 110 1 827
pediatric
Limit to humans 3404 6488 — 1912 — 5187 (1990–) — — —
Limit to English 2 862 5 468 — 1695 — 5177 (English) — 108 1 777
Limit to 1990– 2314 4919 63 1205 2787 2778 (humans) 341 107 1 758
Limit to not MEDLINE — — — — — 640 (not — — —
MEDLINE)
Total citations 14 134
After duplicates removed 9472
After screening 105
After eligibility 58
Articles included 30

Coma Scale score of 13 to 15, posttraumatic amnesia period
of less than 24 hours, duration of loss of consciousness of less
than 30 minutes). 4) Any mechanism of traumatic brain
injury, including assault, with the exception of infantile non-
accidental trauma. 5) Each study must include a control or
comparison population. This must be a comparable healthy
population, or comparable populations with other medical
conditions not involving brain injury (for example, orthopae-
dic injuries). 5) The study outcome must be a psychiatric,
psychological, or behavioural outcome.
We used the following exclusion criteria: 1) The control
population is selected for a specific psychiatric disorder or
any other neurological disorder. 2) Infantile nonaccidental
trauma. 3) Nontraumatic mechanisms of injury, such as
inflammation, infection, or autoimmunity.
Independently and in duplicate, 2 investigators (A.V.-R.
and V.G.) reviewed all potentially relevant titles after
removing duplicates to determine which abstracts to review.
Then, 6 investigators (B.L.B., K.M.B., C.A.E., V.G., K.S.,
K.O.Y.) reviewed the abstracts to select final full manu-
scripts for review. The abstract review was performed in
pairs, with arbitration performed by a second pair.
Data Extraction and Study Rating Process
A data extraction form was used to summarize the following
features of each study: study design, study location, popula-
tion, exposure variable definitions (for example, mTBI and
control group), psychiatric/psychological/behavioural out-
come (definition), effect estimates (for example, odds ratio
[OR], risk ratio, d), or other relevant statistics if no effect
estimate reported. The extracted data were then reviewed for
completeness and utility by 2 authors and categorized by
psychiatric or behavioural outcome for use in the systematic
review. Two authors (2/6 total) independently assessed the
quality and level of evidence of each study. The quality of
evidence was evaluated based on criteria for internal validity
(study design, quality of reporting, presence of selection and
misclassification bias, potential confounding) and external
validity (generalizability) using the Downs and Black (DB)
quality assessment tool, which assigns an individual score
calculated out of 33 total points for each study (Supplemen-
tal online Table S1). The level of evidence represented by
each study was categorized based on the Oxford Centre of
Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) model.40 As per study
exclusion criteria, levels 1a, 2a, 3a (systematic reviews),
4 (case series), and 5 (opinion-based papers) were not
included. Discrepancies in DB scoring or OCEBM categor-
ization were resolved first by consensus between the
2 reviewers who rated the study and, if required, by a second
pair of reviewers.
Data Synthesis
Extracted data and quality and level of evidence were sum-
marized for each study.
Results
Identification of Studies
An overview of the study identification process is provided
in Figure 1. A detailed breakdown of the search process is
summarized in Table 1. The initial search yielded 14 134
manuscripts; 4663 duplicates were removed, leaving 9472
potentially relevant articles. Following title and abstract
review by 2 authors (A.V.-R, V.G.) to identify potential
relevant records, 105 abstracts were selected and reviewed
by 1 additional pair of authors (2/6 authors) for relevance
and inclusion, resulting in a total of 58 full manuscripts.
These 58 manuscripts were divided among 3 pairs of
reviewers (6 reviewers) and further narrowed to 30 full
manuscripts that were included in the systematic review
based on inclusion/exclusion criteria.24,27,31,32,41-66
La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie 61(5) 263

* MEDLINE – 2314
EMBASE – 4919
Cochrane – 63
PsycINFO – 1205
PubMed – 2787
CINAHL – 640
PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram ERIC – 341
mTBI SR SPORTDiscus – 107
search performed 2014.08.15 Web of Science – 1758
TOTAL - 14134
Idenficaon

Records idenfied through Addional records idenfied

database searching through other sources
(n = 14134*) (n = 0)

Records aer duplicates removed

(n = 9472)
Screening

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 105) (n = 9367)

Full-text arcles assessed

Full-text arcles excluded
for eligibility
Eligibility

(n = 47)
(n = 58)

Studies included in
qualitave synthesis
(n = 30)
Inc luded

Studies included in
quantave synthesis
(meta-analysis)
(n = n/a)

Figure 1. Study Identification Process.

Study Characteristics Quality and Level of Evidence

Characteristics of the 30 studies are summarized in Table S1.
They consisted of 2 quasi-experimental, 26 cohort, and 2 case-
control studies, drawn from 6 different countries. The median
number of participants per study was 226 (range 48 to 3182).
Effect Estimates
Descriptions of effect estimates are presented in Table S1.
The median methodological quality score for all 30 studies,
based on the DB criteria, was 15/33 (range 6 to 19). Because
the included studies were primarily observational in nature,
7 items (4, 8, 14, 19, 23, 24, and 27; totalling 11 points) on
the DB checklist were not applicable for 28/30 studies.
Therefore, most studies could not achieve a full score. Sev-
eral limitations were characteristic of most of the included
studies: incomplete description of how the sample was
264
representative of the population of interest (for example,
recruitment strategy unclear), limited description of the char-
acteristics of those lost to follow-up, use of unreliable or
invalid measures (or failure to report on reliability and/or
validity), insufficient reporting of how participants lost to
follow-up and differing length of follow-up were accounted
for in statistical analyses, inadequate sample size, and lack of
adjustment for potential modification and confounding by
factors such as exposure and previous injury. Further, several
of the studies that report a matched design did not account
for matching in their analyses.
The highest level of evidence demonstrated by all
reviewed studies was level 2b (defined as an individual
cohort study by the OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working
Group, 2011),40 with the majority (28/30) of studies classi-
fied at this level.
Synthesis of Results
The most commonly investigated behavioural/psychologi-
cal/psychiatric outcomes that were included in multiple
studies were attention problems, depression and mood
disorders, anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)/
disruptive behaviours, and posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). In addition, autism/pervasive developmental dis-
order, schizophrenia, and substance abuse were evaluated
in 1 study each.
Attention Problems and Hyperactivity. Attention problems and
hyperactivity are the most commonly studied psychological/
psychiatric/behavioural outcomes of mTBI in youth. The
findings are fairly consistent, with higher rates of inatten-
tive/hyperactive symptoms reported 1) in those who are hos-
pitalized versus not hospitalized for mTBI and 2) when
comparing youth with mTBI to healthy (noninjured)
controls.
Several studies reported that children and adolescents
who are hospitalized for mTBI display more symptoms of
inattention and hyperactivity than those who are not hospi-
talized or healthy controls.44,46-48 Hawley et al44 reported a
relative risk of 6.34 for attention problems in youth who
were hospitalized for a mTBI, but the comparison group was
composed of healthy controls, and problems were reported
based on parents’ retrospective recall more than 2 years after
the injury.
The comparison group used for examining psychological/
behavioural symptoms in children with mTBI is key for
many studies, especially those focused on attention/hyper-
activity. When youth with mTBI are compared with healthy
noninjured controls, secondary attention-deficit hyperactiv-
ity disorder (ADHD) is found in a higher proportion of the
children with mTBI (for example, Schachar et al50 reported
that 36% of mTBI and 12% of noninjured controls have
secondary ADHD). Youth who sustain any type of injury
are more likely to display attention problems; thus, using a
noninjured comparison group is likely to overestimate group
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 61(5)
differences in secondary ADHD by failing to adequately
account for preinjury status. Basson et al54 found that youth
who sustain multiple trauma, with or without mTBI, are
more likely to have attention problems (plus other psycho-
logical issues) than youth who present to the emergency
department for nontrauma medical care. Max et al45 reported
that the prevalence of primary ADHD was not significantly
different in a sample of youth with mTBI (5/24) and a sam-
ple of youth with an orthopaedic injury (4/24). When con-
sidering the prevalence of secondary ADHD in their sample,
Max et al45 reported no significant differences between the
mTBI group (3/19) and the orthopaedic injury control group
(1/20), w2(1) ¼ 1.00, P ¼ 0.317.
Depression/Withdrawal/Mood Problems. Both mood disorder
diagnoses and elevated mood symptoms as rated on ques-
tionnaires are reported in youth with mTBI. Luis and Mitten-
berg27 reported that children (mean 10.5 years, SD 3.3) who
were 6 months post-mTBI were 9.3 times more likely to
have a diagnosis of depression, w2(1) ¼ 2.83, P ¼ 0.016,
compared with the orthopaedic injury control group. Hawley
et al suggested that a higher relative risk (RR) for mood
swings (RR 8.16, 95% CI 1.16 to 57.30),44 but not necessa-
rily depression (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.01 to 20.04), was found
more than 2 years after mTBI.43 Young children between 4
and 6 years of age who sustain an mTBI when they are
younger than 3 years are more likely to be withdrawn (OR
or RR not available), although not necessarily depressed.58
Interestingly, mean symptom scores (and their standard
deviations) were solidly within the broadly normal range for
those with an mTBI, suggesting that significantly more
symptoms in young children do not necessarily translate to
clinically meaningful elevations. Trauma itself may be asso-
ciated with elevations in mood symptoms,54 as is a history of
multiple mTBIs.63 Despite multiple studies suggesting sig-
nificantly higher symptoms of depression, mood problems,
and withdrawal in children with mTBI, O’Connor et al49
reported equivocal differences between mTBI and control
and Barker-Collo53 reported that children with mTBI actu-
ally had lower mood symptom ratings than the control group.
Anxiety. The evidence suggests that youth who sustain a sin-
gle mTBI may be more likely to have elevated anxiety soon
after their injury but not necessarily as a long-term outcome.
At 6 months postinjury, Luis and Mittenberg27 reported that
children with mTBI were 4.3 times more likely (95% CI 1.1
to 17.6) to have a new-onset anxiety disorder diagnosis com-
pared with orthopaedically injured controls, w2(1) ¼ 6.06,
P ¼ 0.014. However, when considering long-term anxiety
symptoms after an injury, children with mTBI are unlikely to
have elevated levels compared with controls at 1 year53
(mTBI had fewer symptoms than controls) or 2 years43,44
(95% CIs for RR crosses 1.0) post-mTBI. Children with
multiple mTBIs are 2.24 (95% CI 1.13 to 4.46) times more
likely to have significantly higher levels of anxiety symp-
toms,63 but the sample in this study was limited to young
La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie 61(5)
children who were injured when very young. Similar to
studies on depression/mood, the mean ratings of anxiety in
Liu and Li63 were well within the broadly normal range for
all groups, suggesting that significantly higher symptoms in
young children do not necessarily translate to clinically
meaningful elevations.
ODD/Conduct Disorder/Disruptive Behaviours. Several studies
have examined disruptive behaviours in youth with mTBI,
but specific diagnoses of behaviour disorders are relatively
understudied. Regarding ODD and conduct disorder (CD),
hospitalization for mTBI appears to be a common factor
associated with these diagnoses. McKinlay and colleagues48
reported that adolescents who were previously hospitalized
after mTBI were more likely than noninjured controls to
have an ODD diagnosis (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.8 to 13.4). Ado-
lescents who were injured early in life (<5 years of age) and
hospitalized for their mTBI also had significantly more prob-
lems associated with ODD/CD than those not hospitalized
for their mTBI or noninjured controls, although this finding
was based on symptom reporting rather than structured diag-
nostic interviews. Max and colleagues31 reported that ado-
lescents with mTBI were more likely than controls to have
disruptive behaviours, including 1 or more of ADHD, undif-
ferentiated attention deficit disorder, ODD, and/or CD (OR
2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 5.0).
Most research on disruptive behaviours in children with
mTBI has considered a broad range of problems, such as
elevated ratings on scales measuring broad externalizing
behaviours or concerns with rage, emotional reactivity, or
aggression. The existing research is mixed, however, with
the presence of preinjury behavioural concerns,56,62 trauma
with or without mTBI,54 multiple mTBIs,63 and hospitaliza-
tion for the injury47,48 appearing to be factors associated with
disruptive behaviours in children and adolescents who have
sustained an mTBI.
PTSD. The limited available literature presents mixed find-
ings regarding the presence of PTSD or its symptoms in
children who sustain mTBI. Hajek et al42 reported that the
likelihood of children and adolescents having elevated PTSD
symptoms (parent rated) at 1 to 2 weeks, 3 months, and 12
months post-mTBI was not different from an orthopaedically
injured control group, suggesting that injury in general (and
not specifically mTBI) may be related to PTSD symptoms.
In contrast, O’Connor et al49 reported that youth with mTBI
self-reported significantly more PTSD symptoms than ortho-
paedically injured youth, with higher PTSD symptoms early
after an injury being related to poorer school functioning at
1 and 2 years postinjury.
Autism/Pervasive Developmental Disorder. The possibility of a
relationship between mTBI in youth and subsequent autism/
pervasive developmental disorders has been the focus of
very little research. In one study, Max and colleagues32
reported that youth who sustain mTBI are significantly less
265
likely to have a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Third Edition, Revised, diagnosis of autism or a
pervasive developmental disorder. In children with mTBI,
3 of 64 were identified historically based on unstructured
diagnostic interviewing as falling on this spectrum as
compared with 10 of 64 controls, w2(1) ¼ 4.20, P ¼ 0.04
(OR 3.8, 95% CI 0.9 to 18.3).
Schizophrenia. One study to date suggests that mTBI may be
associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.41 The associ-
ation seems to be present if there is a familial predisposition
for the disorder. The authors also suggested that the risk of
schizophrenia after mTBI is a function of age at injury, with
the odds of having schizophrenia being greater if the injury
occurs before 11 years of age (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.03 to
5.36).41
Substance Abuse. Very little research has considered whether
youth who sustain mTBI are more likely to have a substance
abuse problem. In a cohort study that involved adolescents
who had previously sustained an mTBI between 0 and 5
years of age, McKinlay et al48 reported that those who were
hospitalized for the mTBI had a 3-fold increase (95% CI 1.1
to 8.5) in the likelihood of a substance abuse diagnosis using
a semistructured interview (Diagnostic Interview Schedule
for Children) compared with uninjured controls. However,
children who were not hospitalized for their mTBI did not
differ in substance abuse diagnoses.
Discussion
MTBI affects a large number of children and adolescents
each year in Canada, through both sport-related and non–
sport-related mechanisms. Although the vast majority of
children with mTBI recover relatively quickly and with few
sequelae,16,17 a small proportion displays persistent prob-
lems, often leading to a delayed return to school, a need for
academic accommodations, a delayed return to sport, and an
increased level of health care services. Although somatic
symptoms (for example, headaches, dizziness) are often the
focus following mTBI and a key marker of recovery,17,67
psychological/psychiatric recovery is also an important
aspect of postinjury outcome and recovery for children and
adolescents. Based on our systematic review, the evidence
for increased psychological, behavioural, and psychiatric
problems following a mTBI is mixed, most often based on
symptom ratings (not actual diagnosis) and founded on a
small number of studies characterized by multiple methodo-
logical limitations. Overall, some evidence supports an
increased prevalence of psychological, behavioural, and psy-
chiatric problems (that is, symptoms) when 1) mTBI is asso-
ciated with hospitalization,48 2) the injury occurs early in life
(<6 years old),48,58,63 3) outcomes are assessed earlier after
injury (that is, suggesting resolution over time),27 4) there
are multiple previous mTBIs,63 5) individuals have preexist-
ing psychiatric illness, 56,62 6) outcomes are based on
266
retrospective recall,44 and 7) the comparison group is non-
injured healthy children rather than children with nonhead
injuries.50
A recent systematic review of psychosocial outcomes in
children and adolescents with mTBI reached similar conclu-
sions. Keightley et al38 reported an increased likelihood of
psychological or psychiatric problems in the short term fol-
lowing a mTBI in youth (that is, specifically increased risk
of mood disturbance and hyperactivity; no increased risk of
PTSD) but did not find evidence for long-term psychological
or psychiatric problems. Keightley et al’s systematic review
contained some of the same publications as this one but was
more limited in scope, including only 6 studies.38 The cur-
rent systematic review was based on a wider time frame for
literature searching and a broader perspective on outcome
but yielded similar conclusions about early psychosocial
problems that resolve with time. Previous reviews of psy-
chosocial outcomes have suggested more long-term difficul-
ties after pediatric TBI but have based their conclusions on
studies that include children with more severe TBI, rather
than limiting their review to studies specifically of
mTBI.36,37
In many studies of psychological, behavioural, and psy-
chiatric outcomes, comparison groups were composed of
healthy noninjured youth. Like all research on mTBI, the
comparison group is key to properly interpreting results.
Studies that compare children with mTBI to healthy controls
are more likely to find significantly elevated rates of psy-
chological and psychiatric problems than studies that com-
pare children with mTBI to children with orthopaedic
injuries. The use of a healthy control group fails to control
for the nonspecific effects of sustaining an injury or the risk
of sustaining an injury based on preexisting risk factors. In
fact, comparisons that are significant when based on a
healthy control group50 may disappear when comparisons
are made to controls with orthopaedic injuries (for example,
Max et al45). The use of children with nonhead injuries as a
comparison group represents a more appropriate and rigor-
ous methodology for understanding outcomes following
pediatric mTBI.
Another key methodological distinction should be drawn
between significantly higher symptom ratings after mTBI
versus significantly higher rates of psychological/psychiatric
diagnoses. The former has much more support at present
than the latter. The current systematic review highlighted
the use of both methods for studying psychological/beha-
vioural/psychiatric outcomes. Both are worthy methods for
studying outcome, but results can differ across the 2
approaches, and the interpretation of findings varies accord-
ingly. Significantly higher symptom ratings do not necessa-
rily translate into clinically elevated levels of problems or
formal diagnosis. For example, significantly higher levels of
symptoms of withdrawal were reported for children who
sustained mTBI early in life58; however, the mean scores
were still well within the normal range. Similar findings
were reported for anxiety symptoms in young children with
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 61(5)
multiple prior mTBIs,63 where significantly higher group
means were still well within the normal range. Moreover,
even when elevated, symptoms are not necessarily diagnos-
tic, and considerable overlap exists between many psycho-
logical symptoms and the most common postconcussive
symptoms. The only study comparing semistructured psy-
chiatric interview diagnoses with questionnaire-based symp-
tom ratings when both were administered to the same
children with TBI (mild to severe) found a higher sensitivity
of the former method in detecting significant psychopathol-
ogy.68 These findings may be useful in guiding interpretation
of clinically significant findings when questionnaire meth-
ods rather than psychiatric interviews are used to assess
psychological, behavioural, and psychiatric problems.
The literature to date is insufficient for proving a causal
link between mTBI and psychological/behavioural/psychia-
tric problems. Asking youth or their parents to provide retro-
spective recall of preinjury functioning, particularly at times
far removed from the injury, is not a methodologically sound
approach to controlling for preinjury status, as recall can be
heavily influenced by retrospective biases. 69,70 More
research is needed to determine if psychological/beha-
vioural/psychiatric problems are the result of an mTBI, are
altered by an mTBI, are risk factors for sustaining an mTBI,
or are preinjury predictors of outcome.
Limitations
Meta-analyses were not possible because of inconsistent
methodology and heterogeneity of outcome measures and
research design methodologies. The inclusion of English-
only studies may also have led to selection bias. Inadequate
reporting and control for potential confounders (for example,
multiple concussion history, age, sex) may have led to bias in
study results presented. In some studies, the inability to con-
sider potential confounding was related to smaller sample
sizes. Recruitment of study participants was not random in
most studies, and selection bias may be associated with dif-
ferences in participants selected for the study and those not
selected (for example, presenting to a large emergency
department vs. a primary care setting). Significant losses to
follow-up also increased the likelihood of selection bias in
many studies. Reliance on self-report measures and ques-
tionable validity of other measures also introduced measure-
ment bias in many studies. Given significant concerns with
internal validity, generalizability is also questionable in this
body of literature.
Recommendations
More research is needed to tease out the complex interplay of
preexisting and new-onset psychological/behavioural/psy-
chiatric problems and mTBI. These studies should employ
suitable control groups including children with non-TBI
injuries. Further, distinctions should be made between
La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie 61(5)
elevated symptoms of psychological illness and psychiatric
illness.
Conclusions
Although psychological, behavioural, and psychiatric prob-
lems can occur early in the recovery phase following mTBI,
these resolve in most cases. Children at risk for longer-term
problems are those with multiple previous mTBI or preex-
isting psychiatric illness.
What Are the New Findings?
 Early psychological problems may occur following
mTBI but appear to resolve with time.
 The level of evidence of studies investigating psycho-
logical and behavioural and psychiatric outcome of
pediatric mTBI is primarily level 2 evidence, largely
involving historical cohort studies.
 Future research should focus on high-quality prospec-
tive longitudinal cohort studies to evaluate change
over time in psychological, behavioural, and psychia-
tric outcomes following pediatric concussion.
Authors’ Note
Brian L. Brooks, RPsych, PhD, is a principal investigator, co-
investigator, or collaborator on several grants relating to the study
of mild TBI/concussion in youth. He receives royalties for the sales
of a pediatric forensic textbook and pediatric neuropsychological
tests. Jeffrey E. Max, MBBCh, has received funding from the
National Institutes of Health to study mTBI and provides expert
testimony in cases of TBI, including mTBI, on an ad hoc basis for
plaintiffs and defendants on a more or less equal ratio. This activity
constitutes approximately 5% of his professional activities.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Carolyn A. Emery, PT, PhD, holds a Chair in Pediatric Rehabilita-
tion supported by the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation.
Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, holds a Chair in Paediatric Brain Injury
supported by the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation. These
sponsors had no involvement with respect to design, collection or
data analyses, interpretation, writing or submission.
Supplemental Material
The supplemental table cited in this article is available online at
http://cpa.sagepub.com/supplemental.
References
1. Faul M, Xu L, Wald M, et al. Traumatic brain injury in the
United States: national estimates of prevalence and incidence,
2002–2006. Injury Prevention. 2010;16(Suppl 1):A268–A.
267
2. Zemek R, Duval S, Dematteo C. Guidelines for Diagnosing
and Managing Pediatric Concussion. Toronto, ON: Ontario
Neurotrauma Foundation; 2014 [cited 2015]. Available from:
www.onf.org/documents/guidelines-for-pediatric-concussion.
3. Meehan WP, Mannix R. Pediatric concussions in United States
emergency departments in the years 2002 to 2006. J Pediatr.
2010;157(6):889-893.
4. Emery C, Kang J, Shrier I, et al. Risk of injury associated with
bodychecking experience among youth hockey players. Can
Med Assoc J. 2011;183(11):1249-1256.
5. Emery CA, Kang J, Shrier I, et al. Risk of injury associated
with body checking among youth ice hockey players. JAMA.
2010;303(22):2265-2272.
6. Schneider KJ, Emery CA, Kang J, et al. Examining Sport Con-
cussion Assessment Tool ratings for male and female youth
hockey players with and without a history of concussion.
British J Sports Med. 2010;44(15):1112-1117.
7. Prins M, Greco T, Alexander D, et al. The pathophysiology of
traumatic brain injury at a glance. Dis Model Mech. 2013;6(6):
1307-1315.
8. Osmond MH, Klassen TP, Wells GA, et al. CATCH: a clinical
decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children
with minor head injury. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(4):
341-348.
9. Bazarian JJ, Mcclung J, Shah MN, et al. Mild traumatic brain
injury in the United States, 1998-2000. Brain Injury. 2005;
19(2):85-91.
10. McKinlay A. Controversies and outcomes associated with mild
traumatic brain injury in childhood and adolescence. Child
Care Health Dev. 2010;36(1):3-21.
11. Yeates KO. Mild traumatic brain injury and postconcussive
symptoms in children and adolescents. J Int Neuropsychol Soc.
2010;16(06):953-960.
12. Bowman SM, Bird TM, Aitken ME, et al. Trends in hospitali-
zations associated with pediatric traumatic brain injuries.
Pediatrics. 2008;122(5):988-993.
13. Kamerling SN, Lutz N, Posner JC, Vanore M. Mild traumatic
brain injury in children: practice guidelines for emergency
department and hospitalized patients. Pediatr Emerg Care.
2003;19(6):431-440.
14. Brooks BL, McKay CD, Mrazik M, et al. Subjective, but not
objective, lingering effects of multiple past concussions in
adolescents. J Neurotrauma. 2013;30(17):1469-1475.
15. Mannix R, Iverson GL, Maxwell B, et al. Multiple prior con-
cussions are associated with symptoms in high school athletes.
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2014;1(6):433-438.
16. Barlow KM, Crawford S, Brooks BL, et al. The incidence of
postconcussion syndrome remains stable following mild trau-
matic brain injury in children. Pediatr Neurol. 2015;25(6):
491-497.
17. Barlow KM, Crawford S, Stevenson A, et al. Epidemiology of
postconcussion syndrome in pediatric mild traumatic brain
injury. Pediatrics. 2010;126(2):e374-e381.
18. Brown G, Chadwick O, Shaffer D, et al. A prospective study of
children with head injuries: III. Psychiatric sequelae. Psychol
Med. 1981;11(1):63-78.
268
19. Max JE, Schachar RJ, Landis J, et al. Psychiatric disorders in
children and adolescents in the first six months after mild
traumatic brain injury. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci.
2013;25(3):187-197.
20. Max JE, Pardo D, Hanten G, et al. Psychiatric disorders in
children and adolescents six-to-twelve months after mild trau-
matic brain injury. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2013;
25(4):272-282.
21. Max JE, Friedman K, Wilde EA, et al. Psychiatric disorders in
children and adolescents 24 months after mild traumatic brain
injury. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2015;27(2):112-120.
22. Max JE, Wilde EA, Bigler ED, et al. Psychiatric disorders after
pediatric traumatic brain injury: a prospective, longitudinal,
controlled study. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012;
24(4):427-436.
23. Max JE, Robin DA, Lindgren SD, et al. Traumatic brain injury
in children and adolescents: psychiatric disorders at two years.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(9):1278-1285.
24. Massagli TL, Fann JR, Burington BE, et al. Psychiatric illness
after mild traumatic brain injury in children. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 2004;85(9):1428-1434.
25. Black P, Jeffries JJ, Blumer D, et al.The posttraumatic syn-
drome in children: characteristics and incidence. In: Walker
AE, Caveness WF, Critchley M; Research Group on Head
Injuries, editors. The late effects of head injury. Springfield
(IL): C. C. Thomas; 1969. p 142-149.
26. Hjern B.Acute head injuries in children: traumatology, therapy
and prognosis. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksells Bok-
tryckeri AB; 1964.
27. Luis CA, Mittenberg W. Mood and anxiety disorders following
pediatric traumatic brain injury: a prospective study. J Clin Exp
Neuropsychol. 2002;24(3):270-279.
28. Bloom DR, Levin HS, Ewing-Cobbs L, et al. Lifetime and
novel psychiatric disorders after pediatric traumatic brain
injury. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40(5):
572-579.
29. Lehmkuhl G, Thoma W. Development in children after severe
head injury. In: Rothenberger A, editor. Brain and Behavior in
Child Psychiatry. Berlin (Germany): Springer-Verlag; 1990.
p 267-282.
30. Max JE, Koele SL, Smith WL Jr, et al. Psychiatric disorders in
children and adolescents after severe traumatic brain injury: a
controlled study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;
37(8):832-840.
31. Max JE, Lindgren SD, Knutson C, et al. Child and adoles-
cent traumatic brain injury: psychiatric findings from a pae-
diatric outpatient specialty clinic. Brain Injury. 1997;11(10):
699-711.
32. Max JE, Sharma A, Qurashi MI. Traumatic brain injury in a
child psychiatry inpatient population: a controlled study. J Am
Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(11):1595-1601.
33. Max JE, Dunisch DL. Traumatic brain injury in a child psy-
chiatry outpatient clinic: a controlled study. J Am Acad Child
Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(3):404-411.
34. Otto U. The postconcussion syndrome in children [in German].
Acta Paedopsychiatrica. 1960;27:6-20.
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 61(5)
35. Leckman JF, Sholomskas D, Thompson WD, Belanger A,
Weissman MM. Best estimate of lifetime psychiatric diagno-
sis: a methodological study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39(8):
879-883.
36. Trenchard SO, Rust S, Bunton P. A systematic review of psy-
chosocial outcomes within 2 years of paediatric traumatic brain
injury in a school-aged population. Brain Injury. 2013;27(11):
1217-1237.
37. Li L, Liu J. The effect of pediatric traumatic brain injury on
behavioral outcomes: a systematic review. Dev Med Child
Neurol. 2013;55(1):37-45.
38. Keightley ML, Côté P, Rumney P, et al. Psychosocial conse-
quences of mild traumatic brain injury in children: results of a
systematic review by the International Collaboration on Mild
Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehab.
2014;95(3):S192-S200.
39. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA state-
ment for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of
studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and
elaboration. Plos Med. 2009;6(7):1-28.
40. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, et al. The Oxford Levels of
Evidence 2: Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine
(OCEBM). Available from: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?
o¼5653.
41. AbdelMalik P, Husted J, Chow EW, et al. Childhood head
injury and expression of schizophrenia in multiply affected
families. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(3):231-236.
42. Hajek CA, Yeates KO, Gerry Taylor H, et al. Relationships
among post-concussive symptoms and symptoms of PTSD in
children following mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury.
2010;24(2):100-109.
43. Hawley CA. Reported problems and their resolution following
mild, moderate and severe traumatic brain injury amongst chil-
dren and adolescents in the UK. Brain Injury. 2003;17(2):
105-129.
44. Hawley CA, Ward AB, Magnay AR, et al. Outcomes following
childhood head injury: a population study. J Neurol Neurosurg
Psychiatry. 2004;75(5):737-742.
45. Max JE, Lansing AE, Koele SL, et al. Attention deficit hyper-
activity disorder in children and adolescents following trau-
matic brain injury. Dev Neuropsychol. 2004;25(1–2):159-177.
46. McKinlay A, Dalrymple-Alford J, Horwood L, et al. Long term
psychosocial outcomes after mild head injury in early child-
hood. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73(3):281-288.
47. McKinlay A, Grace R, Horwood L, et al. Prevalence of trau-
matic brain injury among children, adolescents and young
adults: prospective evidence from a birth cohort. Brain Injury.
2008;22(2):175-181.
48. McKinlay A, Grace R, Horwood J, et al. Adolescent psychia-
tric symptoms following preschool childhood mild traumatic
brain injury: evidence from a birth cohort. J Head Trauma
Rehabil. 2009;24(3):221-227.
49. O’Connor SS, Zatzick DF, Wang J, et al. Association between
posttraumatic stress, depression, and functional impairments in
adolescents 24 months after traumatic brain injury. J Trauma
Stress. 2012;25(3):264-271.
La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie 61(5)
50. Schachar R, Levin HS, Max JE, et al. Attention deficit hyper-
activity disorder symptoms and response inhibition after closed
head injury in children: do preinjury behavior and injury sever-
ity predict outcome? Dev Neuropsychol. 2004;25(1–2):
179-198.
51. Anderson VA, Catroppa C, Dudgeon P, et al. Understanding
predictors of functional recovery and outcome 30 months fol-
lowing early childhood head injury. Neuropsychology. 2006;
20(1):42.
52. Antshel KM, Malhotra A, Seigers D. Attributions of behavior
in the pediatric mild closed head injury (CHI) population. Psy-
chol Health Med. 2007;12(1):48-63.
53. Barker-Collo SL. Behavioural profiles and injury severity fol-
lowing childhood traumatic brain injury. Brain Impair. 2007;
8(1):22-30.
54. Basson MD, Guinn JE, McElligott J, et al. Behavioral distur-
bances in children after trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg.
1991;31(10):1363-1368.
55. Bijur PE, Haslum M, Golding J. Cognitive and behavioral
sequelae of mild head injury in children. Pediatrics. 1990;
86(3):337-344.
56. Catroppa C, Anderson VA, Morse SA, et al. Outcome and
predictors of functional recovery 5 years following pediatric
traumatic brain injury (TBI). J Pediatr Psychol. 2008;33(7):
707-718.
57. Catroppa C, Crossley L, Hearps SJ, et al. Social and beha-
vioral outcomes: pre-injury to six months following child-
hood traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32(2):
109-115.
58. Crowe LM, Catroppa C, Babl FE, et al. Intellectual, behavioral,
and social outcomes of accidental traumatic brain injury in
early childhood. Pediatrics. 2012;129(2):e262-e268.
59. Fay GC, Jaffe KM, Polissar NL, et al. Outcome of pediatric
traumatic brain injury at three years: a cohort study. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil. 1994;75(7):733-741.
60. Hawley CA. Behaviour and school performance after brain
injury. Brain Injury. 2004;18(7):645-659.
269
61. Kaldoja M-L, Kolk A. Social-emotional behaviour in infants
and toddlers with mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury.
2012;26(7–8):1005-1013.
62. Light R, Asarnow R, Satz P, et al. Mild closed-head injury in
children and adolescents: Behavior problems and academic
outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66(6):1023.
63. Liu J, Li L. Parent-reported mild head injury history and beha-
vioural performance in children at 6 years. Brain Injury. 2013;
27(11):1263-1270.
64. Ponsford J, Willmott C, Rothwell A, et al. Cognitive and beha-
vioral outcome following mild traumatic head injury in chil-
dren. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1999;14(4):360-372.
65. Ponsford J, Willmott C, Rothwell A, et al. Impact of early
intervention on outcome after mild traumatic brain injury in
children. Pediatrics. 2001;108(6):1297-1303.
66. Tlustos SJ, Chiu C-YP, Walz NC, et al. Emotion labeling and
socio-emotional outcomes 18 months after early childhood
traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011;17(06):
1132-1142.
67. Zemek R, Osmond MH, Barrowman N. Predicting and pre-
venting postconcussive problems in paediatrics (5P) study:
protocol for a prospective multicentre clinical prediction rule
derivation study in children with concussion. BMJ Open.
2013;3(8).
68. Wassenberg R, Max JE, Koele SL, et al. Classifying psychia-
tric disorders after traumatic brain injury and orthopaedic
injury in children: adequacy of K-SADS versus CBCL. Brain
Injury. 2004;18(4):377-390.
69. Brooks BL, Kadoura B, Turley B, et al. Perception of recovery
after pediatric mild traumatic brain injury is influenced by the
‘‘good old days’’ bias: tangible implications for clinical prac-
tice and outcomes research. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;
29(2):186-193.
70. Iverson GL, Brooks BL, Holdnack JA. Misdiagnosis of cogni-
tive impairment. In: Heilbronner R, editor. Neuropsychology
in the courtroom: expert analysis of reports and testimony.
New York (NY): Guilford Press; 2008. p 243-266.