The article Traumatic brain injury by Ghajar (2002) is the most appropriate for explaining the study methodologies employed by psychologists and their benefits and drawbacks. This resource thoroughly examines traumatic brain injury (TBI), including its occurrence, diagnosis, and treatment. Though there is no research, it uses data from multiple experiments and therapy trials to recommend evidence-based therapies for TBI. Regarding the validity of a study, Ghajar’s conclusions are backed up by data he offers, which includes an extensive review of all accessible material. For instance, Ghajar (2000) estimates that people who sustain TBI in the USA, which he notes is about 1.6 million, of whom 800000 receive early outpatient care, and 270000 require hospital admission.
Moreover, he notes that yearly, about 52000 deaths and 80000 permanent severe neurological disabilities result from severe traumatic brain injury (Ghajar, 2000). Ghajar’s thoroughness in sourcing material helps bolster the credibility and accuracy of his conclusions as it demonstrates that he has considered all possible factors related to TBI incidence rates within the country before arriving at any final assessments or recommendations on how best to address this issue in the future. Additionally, since this data was collected from reliable sources such as medical journals and governmental reports, there is less risk for bias creeping into these figures than if they had been gathered through more subjective means such as surveys or interviews with patients themselves, who may be prone towards exaggeration due their own experiences with head trauma-related issues over time.
The internal reality of this article is vital as it suggests ways that can be attributed to any treatment or exposure being researched. Furthermore, there is high external validity in Ghajar’s work as evidence shows his conclusions apply to many different people and situations. Construct validity is a concept that has been widely discussed in psychology. It refers to the degree to which an assessment tool accurately measures what it purports to measure (Offit et al., 2013). In this article, construct validity is not particularly relevant as it involves no study or research. Instead, it reviews existing tests and diagnostic criteria such as the Glasgow Coma and Modified Rankin Scale.
The article written by Ghajar is highly credible because many studies support his claims. One study shows monitoring a patient’s intracranial pressure can improve outcomes in severe TBI cases. Although there are some areas where evidence could be more substantial, for example, the debate about hyperventilation, Ghajar’s conclusions remain consistent with available data and applicable across many scenarios. Ghajar’s article is essential to the medical community since it offers evidence-based guidelines for treating Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). It expands on previous research and clinical trials to ensure that indicated treatments are effective. It improves patient outcomes by ensuring they receive the finest care available.
Two other peer-reviewed articles help extend this research further, exploring different aspects of TBI treatment and providing additional insight into how these injuries can be managed effectively include the following; An article by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2023) that looks into detail what is TBI. The article notes the cause of TBI as the forceful bump, blow or jolt to the head or body. The article highlights some temporary problems it can cause the normal brain function, such as thinking, understanding, movement, or even communication of a person. The article lists two broad categories of head injuries: penetrating and non-penetrating. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2023), penetrating TBI occurs when objects such as bullets penetrate the skull, thus entering the brain tissue. This type of penetration severally damages the brain. On the other hand, non-penetrating TBI or closed head injury occurs due to strong external force that moves the brain within the skull.
Moreover, the article highlights the signs and symptoms of TBI, including physical injuries, cognitive symptoms, and sensational injuries. Some of the physical injuries the article lists include; headaches, double vision, or blurred vision. On the other hand, cognitive challenges include problems remembering or concentrating and making decisions. The perception or sensation challenges include hearing problems, for instance, ringing in the ears and a bad taste in the mouth (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2023).
Another way this article extends Ghajar’s work is by exploring chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) disorder. It states that this is a progressive neurological disorder associated with symptoms that may include problems with thinking, understanding, and communicating (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2023). Moreover, it sheds light that CTE occurs in people exposed to tremendous blows to the head. It gives an example of retired who have been reported to have memory problems and tremors. The article is credible as it substantiates its claims with research from reputable intuitions such as the Centers for disease control and Prevention (CDC). For instance, “according to data from CDC, falls are the leading cause of TBIs, especially in young children.” The article, in addition, extends Ghajar’s work by exploring other ways of exploring traumatic brain injuries, which include immediate assessments using standardized instruments such as acute concussion evaluation (ACE), diagnostic imaging using advanced technological equipment such as computed tomography (CT) and Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
An article by Stevens et al. (2022) extends Ghajar TBI work by examining the external lumbar drainage for refractory intracranial hypertension due to traumatic brain injury. The journal by Stevens et al. (2022) is essential to the literature on external lumbar drainage for refractory intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objectives of this study are to systematically evaluate the available literature and examine the use of external lumbar drains in controlling refractory intracranial hypertension, as well as summarizing evidence for both efficacy and safety. This paper extends upon Ghajar’s 2000 work on Traumatic Brain Injury by focusing on how external lumbar drainage can help manage cases that do not respond to more traditional treatments.
Ghajar’s journal focused mainly on defining TBI, classifying its severity levels, and discussing methods of diagnosis and management strategies, including medical interventions such as osmotherapy. However, it did not discuss any specific treatment options related to using an external lumbar drain, nor did it address complications associated with these procedures – something which Stevens et al.’s work does cover extensively through their systematic review process. In particular, they focus heavily on addressing potential safety concerns associated with using this type of procedure while also providing a comprehensive overview of current research surrounding its efficacy when treating patients suffering from TBI-related intracranial hypertension who have been unresponsive to other forms of intervention.
In conclusion, Steven et al. and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have contributed to understanding how best to treat those suffering from severe TBI-related symptoms who have been unresponsive to other forms of intervention. Therefore, these journals have been critical in extending Ghajer’s work by providing much-needed insight into both effectiveness and risks associated with employing external Lumber Drainage techniques within clinical practice settings today.
References
Ghajar, J. (2000). Traumatic brain injury. The Lancet, 356(9233), 923–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02689-1
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 2023. “Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.” Www.ninds.nih.gov. Retrieved (https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/traumatic-brain-injury-tbi).
Offit, P. A., Snow, A., Fernandez, T., Cardona, L., Grigorenko, E. L., Doyle, C. A., McDougle, C. J., Bolling, D., Smith, E. G., Smith, J., Blackwell, A., Thibodeau, L., Tang, K., Wier, K., McDuffie, A., McDuffie, A., Poyau, S., Silverman, L. B., Dawson, M., & Silverman, L. B. (2013). Validity. Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders, 0(0), 3212–3213. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_1652
Stevens, A. R., Wai Soon, Y. A. Chowdhury, Emma Toman, Sebastian Yim, Tonny Veenith, Ramesh Chelvarajah, Antonio Belli, & David Davies. (2022). “External Lumbar Drainage for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.” Cureus 0(0). doi https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.30033.
write