logo
Call us: +44 (0)1865 244727

  • Home
  • Scope
  • News
  • Products
    • RADAR
    • CALL-OFF PROJECTS
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • How we work
    • Independent
      • Common law orthodoxies
      • Sensationalism
      • Expert witness
      • Regulation and Politics
      • Tied services
    • Up-to-date
      • Timely
      • Insurance Scenarios
      • Probabilistic Methods
    • Expert
      • Personal Injury
      • Trends
    • Innovative
  • Database
    • Member’s login
    • Member’s Settings
    • Register
    • RADAR Database
  • Recent projects
    • EMFs
    • STRESS AT WORK
    • WHIPLASH
    • WELDING RODS: MANGANESE EXPOSURE
    • ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    • Other Projects



Danish TBI study – a cause of dementia?

Apr 17, 2018
by Andrew@Reliabilityoxford.co.uk
0 Comment
This study has many high quality characteristics including high participation rates, prospective design, and objective data on TBI and dementia and a several medical confounders. It can be found here: Jesse R Fann et al. Lancet Psychiatry http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30065-8.

The study includes 126,734 dementia cases in the analysis; 6,374 had experienced TBI. A potentially powerful study.

The data clearly shows an increased risk of dementia diagnosis within the 2 years following TBI. However, there is no variation in risk between 4 and 14 years after TBI, suggesting a completely uniform acceleration, which would be hard to explain. There is also decreasing risk as age increases, yet older people are more vulnerable to dementia. This also is hard to explain.

The authors call for more to be done to prevent TBI. Dementia is a growing problem.

Motor and sports insurers would be especially sensitive to this issue if it turned out that TBI was a legal cause of dementia. Especially if this was young onset dementia.

Although not assessed by the authors, a  large proportion of the observed association is probably due to reverse causation. Around 67% is probably due to reverse causation, but only the authors can quantify this precisely. An unknown proportion is due to residual confounding e.g. from educational attainment. There are good reasons to suspect residual confounding.

A full report is included in the next issue of the Radar journal.

It is to be hoped that Fann et al. will be encouraged to estimate the contribution made by reverse causation and to estimate the scale of the systematic error arising from probable confounders.

 

 

Social Share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

captcha *

Search Documents


Categories

  • Causation
    • de minimis
    • material contribution
  • Date of knowledge
  • Diagnosis
  • Duty of Care
  • Exposure estimation data
  • Mitigation
  • Motor related injury
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012

© Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. 2012. All rights reserved.
Website Design by The Big Picture