XXXX after @entity135 : a medicolegal dilemma.

@entity1 @entity135 @entity308 @entity174 @entity1353 @entity146 @entity542 @entity7125 @entity2147 @entity772 @entity158 @entity25 @entity130
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the severity of @entity25 in @entity1 with a history of @entity542 who complain of daytime @entity2147 , to investigate polygraphic @entity25 , and to determine whether @entity25 was the cause or consequence of the @entity542 . METHODS: The authors performed a systematic evaluation of 184 @entity1 comprised of clinical interviews, @entity25 questionnaires, @entity25 and @entity308 scales, medical and neurologic evaluations, sleep logs with actigraphy, nocturnal polysomnography, and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). Assessments of @entity25 before the accident were based on bed partner interviews, coworker and employer reports, health reports, driving records, and employment history that included absenteeism. RESULTS: Post-traumatic complaint of @entity2147 was associated with variable degrees of impaired daytime functioning in more than 98% of @entity1 . @entity1 who were in a @entity772 for 24 hours, who had a @entity174 , or who had immediate neurosurgical interventions were likely to have scores > 16 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and < or = 5 minutes on the MSLT. @entity158 at night was an important factor in nocturnal sleep disruption and @entity25 . @entity25 @entity1353 was a common finding and was the only finding in @entity7125 @entity1 with @entity25 . Extensive evaluation of @entity146 supported the conclusion that the onset of symptomatic @entity25 @entity1353 was associated with the @entity130 . The @entity1 who showed a "compulsive @entity146 " were severely impaired in performing their daily activities. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach is required when dealing with @entity1 complaining of @entity2147 following a @entity135 .
