Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 85, Issue 10 , Pages 1662-1666, October 2004

Outcome after mild to moderate traumatic brain injury: The role of dizziness

  • Laury Chamelian, MD (FRCPC)

      Affiliations

    • University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    • ,
  • Anthony Feinstein, PhD, MRCPsych (FRCPC)

      Affiliations

    • University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Anthony Feinstein, MD, FG08, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada

Article Outline

Abstract 

Chamelian L, Feinstein A. Outcome after mild to moderate traumatic brain injury: the role of dizziness.

Objective

To assess the specific effect of dizziness on psychosocial outcome after mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Design

Six-month cross-sectional study.

Setting

An outpatient TBI clinic in a tertiary care referral center.

Participants

A consecutive sample of 207 adults with mild to moderate TBI, 138 (66.7%) of whom had subjective complaint of posttraumatic dizziness.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main outcome measures

Psychosocial indices (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS], General Health Questionnaire [GHQ], Rivermead Head Injury Follow-Up Questionnaire [RHFUQ], return to work status) were collected from dizzy and nondizzy patients.

Results

Despite similar demographic, TBI, and global disability (GOS) profiles of both groups, psychosocial functioning (GHQ, RHFUQ, return to work) was significantly worse in dizzy subjects (P<.01 for all indices). A logistic regression analysis identified dizziness (P=.006), total GHQ (P=.001), and psychotropic and analgesic use (P=.05) as significant independent predictors of reemployment.

Conclusions

Although dizziness was closely linked to psychologic distress at 6 months after head injury, it also emerged as an independent predictor of failure to return to work, suggesting that not all its adverse effects on outcome are psychologically mediated. Clinicians need to be alert to the presence of dizziness as an adverse prognostic indicator after mild to moderate TBI.

Key words:  Dizziness , Head injuries , Rehabilitation , Psychosocial aspects

 

AFTER MILD TRAUMATIC BRAIN injury (TBI), 10% to 15% of patients remain symptomatic with postconcussive symptoms for a year or longer.1 This figure rises to 28% for those who have sustained moderate head injury.2 Possible reasons for poor outcome include biologic, psychosocial, and medicolegal explanations.1, 3, 4, 5, 6

Persisting postconcussive symptoms are often responsible for considerable social distress because 34% to 75%7, 8 of TBI patients, depending on injury severity, fail to return to work 3 months after injury. At 1-year follow-up, only 80% of mild TBI9 patients and 61% of those with moderate head injuries10 are able to work. However, even though reemployment frequently occurs despite persistent postconcussive symptoms, these symptoms prevent patients from performing at their preaccident levels.11, 12

Several studies have identified distinct variables that predict poor vocational recovery after head injury. These are greater TBI severity (based on Glasgow Coma Scale13, 14, 15 [GCS] or duration of posttraumatic amnesia15, 16 [PTA]), absence of work before injury,13, 16, 17 previous employment in semiskilled or unskilled jobs,18 low educational level,14, 19 preexisting psychiatric condition,20, 21 comorbid problems with drugs and alcohol,20, 21, 22 and increased age.13, 17

However, thus far in the literature, little emphasis has been placed on the potential predictive value of postconcussive symptoms with regard to return to work, despite the persistent nature of the symptoms after head injury. For example, posttraumatic dizziness may affect 20% to 50% of patients with TBI, depending on injury severity,23, 24 and remain disabling for many months.6, 10, 25, 26 Regardless of its specific type and possible underlying cause, dizziness is among the top 5 postconcussive symptoms distinguishing patients with mild TBI from healthy controls.27 Yet, its effect on outcome remains unclear because it is frequently analyzed along with other symptoms that are experienced after a head injury.10, 11, 12, 25, 28 The single study that assessed specifically the prognosis for posttraumatic dizziness reported a 46% failure of return to work 5 years after mild to moderate TBI; however, a control group of nondizzy patients was not included,24 thereby making data interpretation problematic.

Given the paucity of research on posttraumatic dizziness, the methodologic limitations of previous studies, plus the fact that dizziness has been identified as among the more specific symptoms of TBI, we undertook a study to address what role dizziness plays in outcome after mild to moderate TBI.

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

Participants selection 

A consecutive sample of 207 patients was recruited from a TBI clinic at a large trauma centre. Mild TBI was defined as a GCS score of 13 to 15, PTA of less than 24 hours, and loss of consciousness (LOC) less than 20 minutes.29 Moderate TBI criteria were a GCS score of 9 to 12 and PTA of more than 24 hours but less than 1 week. Recruitment was limited to patients aged 18 to 60 years and to those who had completed a self-report questionnaire assessing the presence of posttraumatic dizziness on a 5-point Likert scale (0, absent; 1, no more than before the accident; 2, mild; 3, moderate; 4, severe). Subjects (n=138) with scores of 2 or more were deemed to have “dizziness,” whereas the nondizzy patients (n=69) had scored 0 or 1 on the self-report questionnaire.

As part of the clinic’s mandate, all patients are seen as soon after injury as possible. At that visit, demographic and TBI-related data are collected from patient interview and case note review. The outcome data presented here were collected at the patients’ 6-month follow-up visit. To summarize, the following data were collected: (1) demographic data (age, gender, marital status, preinjury employment status, level of education, type of occupation, history of alcohol and substance abuse, past psychiatric history, family psychiatric history, prior head injuries) and (2) head injury data (mechanism of injury, severity indices such as the GCS recorded at the emergency department [ED] for better consistency,30 LOC, PTA,31 results of brain computed tomography scans ordered at the initial ED assessment). We also used the Abbreviated Injury Score32 (AIS) to quantify other non-TBI injuries that patients may have sustained, and we recorded the details of psychotropic and analgesic medication use at 6 months after TBI.

Outcome measures 

Psychologic distress 

The 28-item General Health Questionnaire33 (GHQ) is a self-report questionnaire that contains 4 subscales of 7 questions each pertaining to somatic complaints, anxiety, social dysfunction, and depression. A choice of 4 responses is allowed for each question. These were scored in a binomial fashion (0-0-1-1).

Global and psychosocial functioning 

The Glasgow Outcome Scale34 (GOS) is a clinician-rated, 5-point scale of global adjustment to activities of daily living, and of general outcome, widely used for patients with TBI. A score of 5 indicates a return to premorbid level of functioning, whereas lower scores denote a poor global outcome. The Rivermead Head Injury Follow-Up Questionnaire35 (RHFUQ) is a 4-point self-report scale that assesses 10 aspects of a patient’s functioning after TBI, with a total score ranging from 0 to 48. Because it provides a more detailed description of psychosocial functioning than the GOS, it was used as a supplement. High scores on the RHFUQ are indicative of poor recovery.

Return to work 

Patients were asked if they had resumed employment. Those who had not returned to work because of injuries other than their TBI (n=50) were excluded from this part of the analysis.

Statistical analysis 

Statistical analyses were conducted by using the SPSS, version 11.0.a Comparisons were undertaken between dizzy and nondizzy groups using t tests for continuous demographic, injury, and psychosocial variables and chi-square analyses for categoric variables. A 1% level of significance was chosen to adjust for multiple comparisons. For effect size calculations (d for continuous variables; h for dichotomous variables) of the 6-month outcome measures, arcsine transformations were used based on the methodology prescribed by Cohen.36

Given that return to work is an important marker of outcome and can be easily recorded, we wanted to investigate the extent to which dizziness, combined with other TBI-related variables, would predict resumption of employment at 6 months postinjury. To this end, we undertook a logistic regression analysis with return to work being the dependent variable. Logistic regression is a statistical modeling technique for dealing with a binary or dichotomous outcome measures and can incorporate several binary or continuous predictor variables. The potential predictors incorporated in the logistic regression were chosen based on previous findings in the literature and included demographic (level of education, occupation type) and premorbid health factors (prior head injury, past psychiatric history, alcohol/substance abuse problems), injury severity indices (GCS score, AIS), psychotropic and/or analgesic medication use, and psychologic distress (total GHQ). The Spearman rank correlation was used to evaluate collinearity among the independent variables chosen as potential predictors for return to work. The Hosmer and Lemeshow chi-square37 was used to assess the goodness-of-fit of the model. Lack of significant intercorrelations among these putative independent variables enabled us to enter them all in the same regression analysis. We ran 2 logistic regression models—the first one did not include dizziness (−2 log L=94.016) whereas the second did (−2 log L=85.558)—allowing us to test the independent effect of dizziness of enhancing predictability for return to work.

Ethics 

The Research Ethics Committee at Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre approved this project, and written consent was obtained from all the study participants.

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Demographic variables 

The mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of the 207 patients was 33±11.8 years and 63.8% were men. There were no demographic differences between subjects with and without dizziness (table 1).

Table 1. Demographic and Premorbid Health Factors in Dizzy Versus Nondizzy Patients
BackgroundDizzy (n=138)Nondizzy (n=69)t / χ2 TestsP
Mean age ± SD (y)33.6±11.631.6±12.3t205=−1.10.26
Gender (male)60.1%71.0%χ12=2.30.12
Marital status (single or divorced)52.2%68.1%χ12=4.80.03
Education (beyond high school)42.3%36.2%χ12=0.70.40
Employment (employed)80.7%72.5%χ12=1.80.18
Occupation (professional/semiprofessional)14.8%13.6%χ12=.05.82
Past alcohol abuse29.9%30.4%χ12=.01.94
Past substance abuse13.2%20.3%χ12=1.70.19
Prior TBI22.6%17.4%χ12=0.80.38
Past psychiatric history14.7%20.4%χ12=1.00.32
Family psychiatric history30.4%31.3%χ12=.02.89

Injury-related information 

No differences were found between dizzy and nondizzy patients on TBI severity indices. However, dizzy subjects were significantly less likely to have nonhead injuries and more likely to receive psychotropic and/or analgesic medications (table 2).

Table 2. Injury-Related Characteristics in Dizzy Versus Nondizzy Patients
CharacteristicsDizzy (n=138)Nondizzy (n=69)t / χ2 TestsP
Mechanism of injury (MVC-related)63.0%68.1%χ12=0.5.47
LOC χ22=3.0.22
Altered level of consciousness50.0%41.5%
Yes, <20min36.5%49.2%
Yes, >20min13.5%9.2%
PTA χ22=0.9.62
None1.0%*2.3%†
<24h64.4%*69.8%†
>24h34.7%*27.9%†
Mean GCS score ± SD at the ED14.0±1.514.0±1.4t205=−0.2.87
CT scan abnormalities36.6%‡50.0%∥χ12=3.1.08
AIS score ± SD14.2±8.618.7±10.8t171=3.0.003
No. of psychotropics and/or analgesics 6mo post-TBI χ32=20.4<.01
None40.1%70.8%
124.8%20.0%
219.7%7.7%
315.3%1.5%
Time between accident and 6-mo follow-up visit ± SD (d)157.2±54.9166.2±55.5t205=1.1.27

Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MVC, motor vehicle crash.

* n=101.

† n=43.

‡ n=123.

∥ n=62.

Global and psychosocial outcomes 

Although both groups had similar scores on the GOS, dizzy patients had significantly higher scores on all 4 of the GHQ subscales and worse results on the Rivermead Index of psychosocial functioning. They were also significantly less likely to return to work at 6 months after injury. With the exception of GOS score, all the other 6-month psychosocial outcome measures had medium to large effect sizes (table 3).

Table 3. Psychosocial Outcome 6 Months Post-TBI in Dizzy Versus Nondizzy Patients
Outcome MeasuresDizzy (n=138)Nondizzy (n=69)t / χ2 TestsPEffect Size
Mean GOS score ± SD4.2±2.54.5±0.5t191=0.8.41d=.14‡
Mean RHFUQ score ± SD24.3±13.014.2±12.0t196=−5.3<.01d=.80
Mean GHQ score ± SD
Somatic3.5±2.51.4±1.8t172.9=−6.5<.01d=.91
Anxiety3.8±2.62.0±2.3t193=−4.9<.01d=.72∥
Social dysfunction4.2±2.62.3±2.4t188=−4.9.01d=.74∥
Depression1.8±2.40.4±1.0t184.5=−5.6<.01d=.68∥
Total13.4±8.86.0±6.3t168.3=−6.7<.01d=.91
Return to work χ12=22.7<.01h=.84
No66.0%*25.5%†
Yes34.0%*74.5%†

* n=106.

† n=51.

‡ Small effect size: 0.2.

∥ Medium effect size: 0.5.

Large effect size: 0.8.

After the logistic regression analyses that were used to predict reemployment at 6 months postinjury, dizziness significantly improved the predictability of the model because the difference between the −2 log likelihoods was significant (P=.004).37 The full regression model resulted in 3 significant independent predictors of return to work, which were dizziness (P=.006), total GHQ (P=.001), and psychotropic and/or analgesic medication use (P=.05).

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

After mild to moderate TBI, 66.7% of our patients had subjective complaints of dizziness. This group, when compared with the nondizzy controls, was significantly more anxious and depressed, had greater psychosocial dysfunction, and was less likely to return to work. Medium to mostly large effect sizes for these outcome measures substantiate the deleterious effect of dizziness on recovery 6 months post-TBI. There were no group differences in terms of demographic and head injury severity variables that are generally acknowledged to independently predict recovery from mild TBI,5, 6, 26, 38, 39, 40 although the dizzy subjects were less likely to have sustained other injuries sparing the brain.

To our knowledge, our study is the first to show the predictive value of dizziness on reemployment after a mild or moderate head injury. Failure to regain working activities after TBI has devastating consequences, with loss of financial independence, difficulties in psychosocial adjustment, and deterioration in quality of life. In addition, the societal cost is considerable given that the most common victims of TBI are generally young and employed.40

Despite the strong association between posttraumatic dizziness and poor psychosocial outcomes, our methodology did not allow us to tease out the causal relationship between these 2 factors. Thus, we cannot say whether the dizziness promoted anxiety and depression or whether the converse was true, that is, psychologic distress leading to an amplification of complaints of dizziness. This point is further emphasized by the subjective manner in which we measured the presence or absence of dizziness. In this regard, studies that have attempted to document vestibular abnormalities after mild to moderate TBI yielded inconsistent findings, ranging from 32% to 65%.24, 41, 42 The large number of dizzy patients who do not have objective findings of neural damage reinforces the connection with psychologic factors. Here our data are in accord with studies confirming the association in patients without TBI.43, 44, 45, 46, 47 The neural circuitry involved in generating both anxiety and vestibular symptoms has been recently described.48 Preliminary evidence from a case study49 and a case series50 of vestibular rehabilitation techniques alleviating both posttraumatic dizziness and psychologic distress gives additional support to this model.

Although postconcussive dizziness was closely linked to psychologic distress, it also emerged as an independent predictor of outcome. Even after adjusting for confounders such as psychotropic and/or analgesic medication use, dizziness emerged as an independent predictor of return to work 6 months postinjury. This suggests that not all the adverse effects of posttraumatic dizziness on outcome are psychologically mediated. Furman and Jacob51 have proposed a classification that identifies several interactions between dizziness and psychiatric disorders in which the presence of a psychiatric or psychologic condition does not preclude the possibility of a vestibular or neural etiology as cause of dizziness. The latter may be of peripheral52, 53, 54 or central23, 41, 54 origin. Although dizziness is conceptualized as being mainly a somatic complaint in the postconcussive syndrome, a multidisciplinary approach that also includes psychiatric assessment in treating this condition will be superior to an exclusively medical one.

One pitfall of studying patients with mild TBI is the relative nonspecificity of their symptoms. However, a recent study27 identified 5 subjective complaints that were integral to the postconcussive syndrome, of which dizziness was one. The only study24 that examined the specific effect of posttraumatic dizziness had many methodologic problems, such as absence of a control group of nondizzy subjects and failure to investigate concomitant psychologic conditions. Their rate of failure to return to work was lower (46%)24 than that found in our study (66%). However, these 2 rates are not directly comparable because they differ in terms of their postinjury assessment period. In the former study,24 reemployment was evaluated at 5 years after head injury whereas our patients were assessed only at 6 months post-TBI.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusions 

Our study is the first to investigate the effect of posttraumatic dizziness on psychosocial outcome in mild to moderate TBI patients. Given that dizziness is among the more specific postconcussive symptoms, this question is of clinical relevance. Our finding, that dizziness is an adverse prognostic indicator, irrespective of etiology, reinforces the need for clinicians to be alert to its presence and potential implications. If detected early and treated according its underlying pathology, which may be of vestibular, neural, or psychiatric origin, it might help TBI patients resume employment with the briefest delay. Future research should incorporate objective measures and more detailed qualification of posttraumatic dizziness (eg, intensity, duration, precipitating and exacerbating factors, differentiation of vertigo from presyncopal lightheadedness, presence of nystagmus, and associated auditory or cardiac features) to further clarify the etiology and the impact of this symptom on outcome after mild to moderate head injury.

Supplier

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Alexander MP . Mild traumatic brain injury (pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical management) . Neurology . 1995;45:1253–1260
  2. Hellawell DJ , Taylor R , Pentland B . Cognitive and psychosocial outcome following moderate or severe traumatic brain injury . Brain Inj . 1999;13:489–504
  3. Szymanski HV , Linn R . A review of the postconcussion syndrome . Int J Psychiatry Med . 1992;22:357–375
  4. Fenton G , McClelland R , Montgomery A , MacFlynn G , Rutherford W . The postconcussional syndrome (social antecedents and psychological sequelae) . Br J Psychiatry . 1993;162:493–497
  5. Jacobson RR . The post-concussional syndrome: physiogenesis, psychogenesis and malingering. An integrative model . J Psychosom Res . 1995;39:675–693
  6. Binder LM . A review of mild head trauma. Part II: Clinical implication . J Clin Exp Neuropsychol . 1997;19:432–457
  7. Rimel RW , Giordani B , Barth JT , Boll TJ , Jane JA . Disability caused by minor head injury . Neurosurgery . 1981;9:221–228
  8. Rimel RW , Giordani B , Barth JT , Jane JA . Moderate head injury (completing the clinical spectrum of brain trauma) . Neurosurgery . 1982;11:344–351
  9. Dikmen S , McLean A , Temkin N . Neuropsychological and psychosocial consequences of minor head injury . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1986;49:1227–1232
  10. van der Naalt J , van Zomeren AH , Sluiter WJ , Minderhoud JM . One year outcome in mild to moderate head injury (the predictive value of acute injury characteristics related to complaints and return to work) . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1999;66:207–213
  11. Englander J , Hall K , Stimpson T , Chaffin S . Mild Traumatic brain injury in an insured population (subjective complaints and return to employment) . Brain Inj . 1992;6:161–166
  12. Powel TJ , Collin C , Sutton K . A follow-up study of patients hospitalized after minor head injury . Disabil Rehabil . 1996;18:231–237
  13. Stambrook M , Moore AD , Peters LC , Deviaene C , Hawryluk GA . Effects of mild, moderate and severe closed head injury on long-term vocational status . Brain Inj . 1990;4:183–190
  14. Dikmen SS , Temkin NR , Machamer JE , Holubkov AL , Fraser RT , Winn HR . Employment following traumatic head injuries . Arch Neurol . 1994;51:177–186
  15. Cifu DX , Keyser-Marcus L , Lopez E , et al.   Acute predictors of successful return to work 1 year after traumatic brain injury (a multicenter analysis) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 1997;78:125–131
  16. Sherer M , Sander AM , Nick TG , High WM , Malec JF , Rosenthal M . Early cognitive status and productivity outcome after traumatic brain injury (findings from the TBI model systems) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2002;83:183–192
  17. Keyser-Marcus LA , Bricout JC , Wehman P , et al.   Acute predictors of return to employment after traumatic brain injury (a longitudinal follow-up) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2002;83:635–641
  18. MacKenzie EJ , Shapiro S , Smith RT , Siegel JH , Moody M , Pitt A . Factors influencing return to work following hospitalization for traumatic injury . Am J Public Health . 1987;77:329–334
  19. Greenspan AI , Wrigley JM , Kresnow M , Branche-Dorsey CM , Fine PR . Factors influencing failure to return to work due to traumatic brain injury . Brain Inj . 1996;10:207–218
  20. Wagner AK , Hammond FM , Sasser HC , Wiercisiewski D . Return to productive activity after traumatic brain injury (relationship with measures of disability, handicap, and community integration) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2002;83:107–114
  21. Macmillan PJ , Hart RP , Martelli MF , Zasler ND . Pre-injury status and adaptation following traumatic brain injury . Brain Inj . 2002;16:41–49
  22. Ip RY , Dornan J , Schentag C . Traumatic brain injury (factors predicting return to work or school) . Brain Inj . 1995;9:517–532
  23. Tuohimaa P . Vestibular disturbances after acute mild head injury . Acta Otolaryngol Suppl . 1978;359:5–67
  24. Berman JM , Fredrickson JM . Vertigo after head injury-a five year follow-up . J Otolaryngol . 1978;7:237–245
  25. Ingebrigtsen T , Waterloo K , Marup-Jensen S , Attner E , Romner B . Quantification of post-concussion symptoms 3 months after minor head injury in 100 consecutive patients . J Neurol . 1998;245:609–612
  26. van der Naalt J . Prediction of outcome in mild to moderate head injury (a review) . J Clin Exp Neuropsychol . 2001;23:837–851
  27. Paniak C , Reynolds S , Phillips K , Toller-Lobe G , Melnyk A , Nagy J . Patient complaints within 1 month of mild traumatic brain injury (a controlled study) . Arch Clin Neuropsychol . 2002;17:319–334
  28. Haboubi NH , Long J , Koshy M , Ward AB . Short-term sequelae of minor head injury (6 years experience of minor head injury clinic) . Disabil Rehabil . 2001;23:635–638
  29. American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Head Injury Interdisciplinary Special Interest Group . Definition of mild traumatic brain injury . J Head Trauma Rehabil . 1993;8(3):86–87
  30. Levin HS , High WM , Goethe KE , et al.   The neurobehavioural rating scale (assessment of the behavioural sequelae of head injury by the clinician) . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1987;50:183–193
  31. Russel WR , Smith A . Post-traumatic amnesia in closed head injury . Arch Neurol . 1961;5:16–29
  32. Civil ID , Schwab CW . The Abbreviated Injury Scale, 1985 revision (a condensed chart for clinical use) . J Trauma . 1988;28:87–90
  33. Goldberg DP , Hiller VF . A scaled version of the general health questionnaire . Psychol Med . 1979;9:139–145
  34. Jennett B , Bond M . Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage (A practical scale) . Lancet . 1975;1:480–484
  35. Crawford S , Wenden FJ , Wade DT . The Rivermead head injury follow up questionnaire (a study of a new rating scale and other measures to evaluate outcome after head injury) . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1996;60:510–514
  36. Cohen J . Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum Associates; 1988;
  37. Hosmer DW , Lemeshow S . Applied logistic regression . 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000;
  38. Kibby MY , Long CJ . Minor head injury (attempts at clarifying the confusion) . Brain Inj . 1996;10:159–186
  39. Williams DH , Levin HS , Eisenberg HM . Mild head injury classification . Neurosurgery . 1990;27:422–428
  40. Yasuda S , Wehman P , Targett P , Cifu D , West M . Return to work for persons with traumatic brain injury . Am J Phys Med Rehabil . 2001;80:852–864
  41. Gannon RP , Willson GN , Roberts ME , Pearse HJ . Auditory and vestibular damage in head injuries at work . Arch Otolaryngol . 1978;104:404–408
  42. Willson GN , Gannon RP , Chung DY , Mason K . Auditory and vestibular damage in 100 work-related head injuries . J Laryngol Otol . 1981;95:1213–1219
  43. Eagger S , Luxon LM , Davies RA , Coelho A , Ron MA . Psychiatric morbidity in patients with peripheral vestibular disorder (a clinical and neuro-otological study) . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1992;55:383–387
  44. Sullivan M , Clark MR , Katon WJ , et al.   Psychiatric and otologic diagnoses in patients complaining of dizziness . Arch Intern Med . 1993;153:1479–1484
  45. Kroenke K , Lucas CA , Rosenberg ML , Scherokman BJ . Psychiatric disorders and functional impairment in patients with persistent dizziness . J Gen Intern Med . 1993;8:530–535
  46. Kroenke K , Lucas CA , Rosenberg ML , Scherokman BJ , Herbers JE . One-year outcome for patients with a chief complaint of dizziness . J Gen Intern Med . 1994;9:684–689
  47. Frommberger UH , Tettenborn B , Buller R , Benkert O . Panic disorder in patients with dizziness . Arch Intern Med . 1994;154:590–591
  48. Balaban CD , Thayer JF . Neurological bases for balance-anxiety links . J Anxiety Disord . 2001;15:53–79
  49. Shutty MS , Dawdy L , McMahon M , Buckelew SP . Behavioral treatment of dizziness secondary to benign positional vertigo following head trauma . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 1991;72:473–476
  50. Gurr B , Moffat N . Psychological consequences of vertigo and the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation for brain injury patients . Brain Inj . 2001;15:387–400
  51. Furman JM , Jacob RG . A clinical taxonomy of dizziness and anxiety in the otoneurological setting . J Anxiety Disord . 2001;15:9–26
  52. Davies RA , Luxon LM . Dizziness following head injury (a neuro-otological study) . J Neurol . 1995;242:222–230
  53. Toglia JV , Rosenberg PE , Ronis ML . Posttraumatic dizziness; vestibular, audiologic and medicolegal aspects . Arch Otolaryngol . 1970;92:485–492
  54. Baloh RW , Honrubia V , Jacobson K . Benign positional vertigo (clinical and oculographic features in 240 cases) . Neurology . 1987;37:371–378
  • a SPSS Inc, 233 S Wacker Dr, 11th Fl, Chicago, IL 60606

 Supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant no. 36535).No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(04)00307-7

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.012

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 85, Issue 10 , Pages 1662-1666, October 2004

Article Tools