Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Abstracts

Abstracts Since all were the relation¬ injury. patients receiving compensation, LANCET London, between emotional disturbance and neurobehavioral deficit does England ship not to be related to or factors. There compensation litigation appear was a between of neurobehavioral and positive relationship degree of Rear-Seat Protective Effect Restraints not to interval emotional abnormality. This was due the between Car Collisions During not to to and examination and did be related duration of injury appear to unconsciousness or or the of skull fracture or amnesia, presence nature of to involved in car The 2684 car 1055 seizures. The are discussed in relation to injuries occupants posttraumatic findings was accidents Less than 1% of front-seat were research and to their analyzed. occupants previous posttraumatic implications regarding with 25% of rear-seat all emotional children, compared Nearly adjustment. passengers. rear-seat (97%) were unrestrained. of was Type impact passengers similar for front-seat as for back-seat for Robert A. et Lab¬ generally (1989;70:509-513) Bornstein, PhD, al, Neuropsychology occupants, except rear-seat of Ohio State OH rollover which were more common Department Psychiatry, University, Columbus, impacts, among passen¬ oratory, distribution was similar for front-seat as for gers. Injury severity rear-seat for minor moderate neck Except to injuries, occupants. which were http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

Abstracts

JAMA , Volume 262 (16) – Oct 27, 1989
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/abstracts-vZnCRGTJUz

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.1989.03430160112041
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Since all were the relation¬ injury. patients receiving compensation, LANCET London, between emotional disturbance and neurobehavioral deficit does England ship not to be related to or factors. There compensation litigation appear was a between of neurobehavioral and positive relationship degree of Rear-Seat Protective Effect Restraints not to interval emotional abnormality. This was due the between Car Collisions During not to to and examination and did be related duration of injury appear to unconsciousness or or the of skull fracture or amnesia, presence nature of to involved in car The 2684 car 1055 seizures. The are discussed in relation to injuries occupants posttraumatic findings was accidents Less than 1% of front-seat were research and to their analyzed. occupants previous posttraumatic implications regarding with 25% of rear-seat all emotional children, compared Nearly adjustment. passengers. rear-seat (97%) were unrestrained. of was Type impact passengers similar for front-seat as for back-seat for Robert A. et Lab¬ generally (1989;70:509-513) Bornstein, PhD, al, Neuropsychology occupants, except rear-seat of Ohio State OH rollover which were more common Department Psychiatry, University, Columbus, impacts, among passen¬ oratory, distribution was similar for front-seat as for gers. Injury severity rear-seat for minor moderate neck Except to injuries, occupants. which were

Journal

JAMA – American Medical Association

Published: Oct 27, 1989

There are no references for this article.