Neither the WAD-classification nor the Quebec Task Force follow-up regimen seems to be important for the outcome after a whiplash injury. A prospective study on 186 consecutive patients
- 169 Downloads
A classification of injury and a follow-up schedule were proposed by the Quebec Task Force (QTF) in 1995. No general agreement about the clinical usefulness of the WAD-classification or of the suggested follow-up regimen exists. A series of 186 consecutive cases seen in the emergency room during the acute phase after a whiplash injury was prospectively studied for 1 year. All findings including history and physical findings were recorded using standardized QTF protocols. In one group follow-up visits were done according to the QTF regimen: at 1, 3, 6, 12 weeks and 1 year after the accident; in a control group no visit was scheduled. The outcome variable was neck pain at 1 year after the accident. After 1 year, 18% of the total number of patients had significant neck pain. Risk factors for chronic neck pain at 1 year after whiplash injury were: neck pain before the accident and a high degree of emotional distress at the time of the accident; both factors independently associated with a tenfold increased risk of developing chronic neck pain. Neither the WAD classification nor the QTF follow-up regimen could be linked to a better outcome. In this study the outcome was associated with patient-specific characteristics and not with physical signs of injury, the depth of the initial evaluation or the follow-up regimen.
KeywordsQTF classification Follow-up plan Multivariate analysis Neck sprain Outcome Predictors WAD Whiplash injury
We are obliged to Per Näsman, the Royal Institute of Technology, for statistical advice
Conflict of interest statement
There is no conflict of interest for any of the authors.
- 9.Dolinis (1997) Risk factors for ‘whiplash’ in drivers: a cohort study of rear-end traffic crashes. Injury 28(3):173–179Google Scholar
- 14.Jensen MP (1992) Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Turk DC, Melzack R (eds) Handbook of pain assessment. Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar