Author
Grant L. Iverson
Other affiliations: GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia ...read more
Bio: Grant L. Iverson is an academic researcher from Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Concussion & Poison control. The author has an hindex of 85, co-authored 499 publications receiving 33622 citations. Previous affiliations of Grant L. Iverson include GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre & Simon Fraser University.
Topics: Concussion, Poison control, Traumatic brain injury, Medicine, Athletes
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health1, University of Calgary2, NorthShore University HealthSystem3, University of Michigan4, Boston University5, University of Missouri–Kansas City6, University of Maryland, Baltimore7, University of Washington8, Oslo University Hospital9, University of Zurich10, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill11, Harvard University12, University of Toronto13, University at Buffalo14, University of Melbourne15, University of California, San Francisco16, Medical College of Wisconsin17, Boston Children's Hospital18, Princeton University19, Vanderbilt University20, Vanderbilt University Medical Center21, Toronto Western Hospital22
TL;DR: This document is developed for physicians and healthcare providers who are involved in athlete care, whether at a recreational, elite or professional level, and provides an overview of issues that may be of importance to healthcare providers involved in the management of SRC.
Abstract: The 2017 Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) consensus statement is designed to build on the principles outlined in the previous statements1–4 and to develop further conceptual understanding of sport-related concussion (SRC) using an expert consensus-based approach. This document is developed for physicians and healthcare providers who are involved in athlete care, whether at a recreational, elite or professional level. While agreement exists on the principal messages conveyed by this document, the authors acknowledge that the science of SRC is evolving and therefore individual management and return-to-play decisions remain in the realm of clinical judgement.
This consensus document reflects the current state of knowledge and will need to be modified as new knowledge develops. It provides an overview of issues that may be of importance to healthcare providers involved in the management of SRC. This paper should be read in conjunction with the systematic reviews and methodology paper that accompany it. First and foremost, this document is intended to guide clinical practice; however, the authors feel that it can also help form the agenda for future research relevant to SRC by identifying knowledge gaps.
A series of specific clinical questions were developed as part of the consensus process for the Berlin 2016 meeting. Each consensus question was the subject of a specific formal systematic review, which is published concurrently with this summary statement. Readers are directed to these background papers in conjunction with this summary statement as they provide the context for the issues and include the scope of published research, search strategy and citations reviewed for each question. This 2017 consensus statement also summarises each topic and recommendations in the context of all five CISG meetings (that is, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2012 as well as 2016). Approximately 60 000 published articles were screened by the expert panels for the Berlin …
2,388 citations
Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health1, University of Calgary2, Boston Medical Center3, University of Zurich4, University of Missouri–Kansas City5, University of Oslo6, International Olympic Committee7, University of Toronto8, University of Michigan9, Vanderbilt University Medical Center10, University of Washington11, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill12, University of British Columbia13, Cornell University14, Burke Rehabilitation Hospital15, University of Ottawa16, Medical College of Wisconsin17, University of New South Wales18, Monash University19, University of Melbourne20, McMaster University21, Princeton University22, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey23
TL;DR: The 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012 was attended by Paul McCrory, Willem H Meeuwisse, Mark Aubry, Jiří Dvořák, Ruben J Echemendia, Lars Engebretsen, Karen Johnston, Jeffrey S Kutcher, Martin Raftery, Allen Sills and Kathryn Schneider.
2,293 citations
Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health1, University of Calgary2, Boston University3, University of Missouri–Kansas City4, International Olympic Committee5, University of Michigan6, Veterans Health Administration7, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill8, University of British Columbia9, Medical College of Wisconsin10, University of Melbourne11, McMaster University12, Rutgers University13
TL;DR: This paper is a revision and update of the recommendations developed following the 1st (Vienna 2001), 2nd (Prague 2004) and 3rd (Zurich 2008) International Consensus Conferences on Concussions in Sport and is based on the deliberations at the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012.
Abstract: The new 2012 Zurich Consensus statement is designed to build on the principles outlined in the previous documents and to develop further conceptual understanding of this problem using a formal consensus-based approach. A detailed description of the consensus process is outlined at the end of this document under the Background section. This document is developed primarily for use by physicians and healthcare professionals who are involved in the care of injured athletes, whether at the recreational, elite or professional level.
2,269 citations
Harvard University1, McGill University2, University of Birmingham3, University College London4, University of Alabama at Birmingham5, McMaster University6, Dalhousie University7, Anschutz Medical Campus8, Mount Sinai St. Luke's and Mount Sinai Roosevelt9, Hospital for Special Surgery10, University of Michigan11, Detroit Receiving Hospital12, Johns Hopkins University13, Virginia Commonwealth University14, University of Texas at San Antonio15, University of Kiel16, Royal Stoke University Hospital17, University of British Columbia18, Henry Ford Health System19, University of California, Los Angeles20
TL;DR: The American College of Rheumatology Nomenclature for NPSLE provides case definitions for 19 neuropsychiatric syndromes seen in SLE, with reporting standards and recommendations for laboratory and imaging tests.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE
To develop a standardized nomenclature system for the neuropsychiatric syndromes of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE).
METHODS
An international, multidisciplinary committee representing rheumatology, neurology, psychiatry, neuropsychology, and hematology developed case definitions, reporting standards, and diagnostic testing recommendations. Before and after the meeting, clinician committee members assigned diagnoses to sets of vignettes randomly generated from a pool of 108 NPSLE patients. To assess whether the nomenclature system improved diagnostic agreement, a consensus index was developed and pre- and postmeeting scores were compared by t-tests.
RESULTS
Case definitions including diagnostic criteria, important exclusions, and methods of ascertainment were developed for 19 NPSLE syndromes. Recommendations for standard reporting requirements, minimum laboratory evaluation, and imaging techniques were formulated. A short neuropsychological test battery for the diagnosis of cognitive deficits was proposed. In the postmeeting exercise, a statistically significant improvement in diagnostic agreement was observed.
CONCLUSION
The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Nomenclature for NPSLE provides case definitions for 19 neuropsychiatric syndromes seen in SLE, with reporting standards and recommendations for laboratory and imaging tests. It is intended to facilitate and enhance clinical research, particularly multicenter studies, and reporting. In clinical settings, consultation with other specialists may be required. It should be useful for didactic purposes but should not be used uncritically or as a substitute for a clinical diagnosis. The complete case definitions are available on the ACR World Wide Web site: http://www.rheumatology .org/ar/ar.html.
1,830 citations
01 Jan 2013
976 citations
Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.
9,618 citations
TL;DR: A review of the literature on classroom formative assessment can be found in this article, where the authors consider the perceptions of students and their role in self-assessment alongside analysis of the strategies used by teachers and the formative strategies incorporated in such systemic approaches as mastery learning.
Abstract: This article is a review of the literature on classroom formative assessment. Several studies show firm evidence that innovations designed to strengthen the frequent feedback that students receive about their learning yield substantial learning gains. The perceptions of students and their role in self‐assessment are considered alongside analysis of the strategies used by teachers and the formative strategies incorporated in such systemic approaches as mastery learning. There follows a more detailed and theoretical analysis of the nature of feedback, which provides a basis for a discussion of the development of theoretical models for formative assessment and of the prospects for the improvement of practice.
6,483 citations
TL;DR: Systemic lupus erythematosus is a relapsing and remitting disease, and treatment aims are threefold: managing acute periods of potentially life-threatening ill health, minimizing the risk of flares during periods of relative stability, and controlling the less life- threatening, but often incapacitating day to day symptoms.
Abstract: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a clinically heterogeneous disease, which is autoimmune in origin and is characterized by the presence of autoantibodies directed against nuclear antigens. It is a multi-system disease, and patients can present in vastly different ways. Prevalence varies with ethnicity, but is estimated to be about 1 per 1000 overall with a female to male ratio of 10:1. The clinical heterogeneity of this disease mirrors its complex aetiopathogenesis, which highlights the importance of genetic factors and individual susceptibility to environmental factors. SLE can affect every organ in the body. The most common manifestations include rash, arthritis and fatigue. At the more severe end of the spectrum, SLE can cause nephritis, neurological problems, anaemia and thrombocytopaenia. Over 90% of patients with SLE have positive anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA). Significant titres are accepted to be of 1:80 or greater. SLE is a relapsing and remitting disease, and treatment aims are threefold: managing acute periods of potentially life-threatening ill health, minimizing the risk of flares during periods of relative stability, and controlling the less life-threatening, but often incapacitating day to day symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used for milder disease; corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapies are generally reserved for major organ involvement; anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody is now used in patients with severe disease who has not responded to conventional treatments. Despite enormous improvements in prognosis since the introduction of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive drugs, SLE continues to have a significant impact on the mortality and morbidity of those affected.
4,376 citations
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: For example, Standardi pružaju okvir koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima.
Abstract: Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.
3,905 citations