Poster 9: A Systematic Review of Reviews to Evaluate the Evidence Supporting Interventions for People With Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To determine the methodological quality and assess the evidence from systematic and comprehensive reviews on traumatic brain injury, as well as determine evidence gaps in review topics. Data Source: PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Health Source, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES databases were electronically searched to identify published systematic reviews regarding traumatic brain injury. From this search 131 reviews were identified. Study Selection: PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Health Source, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES databases were electronically searched to identify published systematic reviews regarding traumatic brain injury. From this search 131 reviews were identified. Data Extraction: 2 independent reviewers extracted data from each of the selected studies. The methodological quality of the systematic review, research designs of the included articles, system used for grading evidence, and the main topic of the review were collected in the data extraction process. Data Synthesis: All articles were reviewed and rated for quality using AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews), a reliable and valid tool for this purpose. This tool was applied to each review independently by 2 researchers, and differences were agreed on by consensus. The final analysis was descriptive. Conclusions: Systematic reviews in traumatic brain injury cover a wide range of topics, but mostly focus on executive function, community reintegration, mental health, and pharmacological interventions. Regardless of methodological quality, research design limitations in the field of Rehabilitation Medicine limit the utility of findings for evidence based practice.