Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

An assessment of survey measures used across key epidemiologic studies of United States Gulf War I Era Veterans

  • Rebecca B McNeil1Email author,
  • Catherine M Thomas1,
  • Steven S Coughlin2,
  • Elizabeth Hauser1, 3,
  • Grant D Huang4,
  • Karen M Goldstein5,
  • Marcus R Johnson6,
  • Tyra Dunn-Thomas7 and
  • Dawn T Provenzale1, 5, 3
Environmental Health201312:4

DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-12-4

Received: 21 May 2012

Accepted: 24 December 2012

Published: 9 January 2013

Abstract

Over the past two decades, 12 large epidemiologic studies and 2 registries have focused on U.S. veterans of the 1990–1991 Gulf War Era. We conducted a review of these studies’ research tools to identify existing gaps and overlaps of efforts to date, and to advance development of the next generation of Gulf War Era survey tools. Overall, we found that many of the studies used similar instruments. Questions regarding exposures were more similar across studies than other domains, while neurocognitive and psychological tools were the most variable. Many studies focused on self-reported survey results, with a range of validation practices. However, physical exams, biomedical assessments, and specimen storage were not common. This review suggests that while research may be able to pool data from past surveys, future surveys need to consider how their design can yield data comparable with previous surveys. Additionally, data that incorporate recent technologies in specimen and genetic analyses would greatly enhance such survey data. When combined with existing data on deployment-related exposures and post-deployment health conditions, longitudinal follow-up of existing studies within this collaborative framework could represent an important step toward improving the health of veterans.

Keywords

Persian Gulf War 1991 Survey methods Blood banks

Background

Approximately 697,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces were deployed to Southwest Asia in support of the 1990–1991 Gulf War. More than 4 million remaining troops were deployed elsewhere or not deployed. Elevated rates of measurable symptomatology and illness in Gulf War Era veterans have been well documented [14], with the excess burden of symptom prevalence estimated to be as high as 25-30% among deployed Gulf War troops, while their disease-related mortality remains equivalent to, or even lower than, that of the general population [16]. Many epidemiologic studies have been performed to understand the physical and psychological symptoms observed in and reported by veterans who served during this conflict era [1, 2, 4, 717]. However, a clear pathologic explanation or overarching diagnosis has remained elusive. While studies initially focused on post-deployment mental health, the number of reports of medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness in this veteran population increased during the 1990s [18, 19]. This attracted the attention of researchers in several disciplines, including immunology, toxicology, neurology, occupational (military) health, epidemiology, and environmental health. Consequently, assessments in research expanded to address physical health, symptoms, and deployment-related exposures. Relative to epidemiological research in most other clinical areas, Gulf War-related studies have involved a wide diversity of outcome measures, risk factors, cohort characteristics, and methods. Novel strategies will be required to unify and harmonize the approach to both clinical care and research for this population in the setting of such broad clinical outcomes and diverse risk factors.

A deeper understanding of the tools used by past studies will enable critical evaluation and direction for future efforts. The Institute of Medicine and the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses have both completed comprehensive reviews of Gulf War research [2023]. However, these focused primarily on the findings of the many studies conducted thus far, and not the research tools used to gather the studies’ data. There has not been a recent systematic review of the broad range of assessments used in Gulf War research. In this manuscript, we describe and review the research tools used by the fourteen major Gulf War Era studies to date. It is our intent that this information will assist ongoing research efforts through the following two focused purposes: to provide an overview of the assessment tools used in past studies, and to discuss how future Gulf War research may benefit from consideration of commonalities and gaps in the epidemiologic research.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We used three primary criteria to select candidate studies for inclusion in this review. First, we included epidemiologic studies of U.S. veterans that were considered “major cohorts” by the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 2009 Gulf War and Health review [22], according to their specified criteria for methodologic rigor, health outcomes assessment, medical evaluations, and use of laboratory testing. Second, we included two Gulf War veteran registries established by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense; while these necessarily suffer from the limitations common to registries, such as non-generalizability and absence of a control group, they jointly comprise a vast repository of standardized data that may be useful in future carefully constructed research efforts. Finally, we considered studies reported since the IOM’s 2009 review, and ongoing studies.

We excluded studies of non-U.S. veterans and clinical studies or trials related to specific disease entities. Substudies of primary studies were included under the umbrella of their original study.

These criteria resulted in a total of twelve epidemiologic studies and two large government registries. The specific studies are: Devens Cohort Study (Devens, originally the Ft. Devens Operation Desert Storm Reunion Survey) [7, 24], New Orleans study [8], National Survey of Gulf War Era Veterans and Their Families (National Health Survey) [10], Pennsylvania-Hawaii study [17], Iowa study [2], Air National Guard study [4], Navy Seabees study [12], Oregon-Washington study [13], cross-sectional Kansas study (Kansas I) [1], case–control Kansas study (Kansas II) [14], Millennium Cohort Study [15], Military Health Survey [16], and the VA Persian Gulf War Health Examination Registry (VA Registry) [9] and DoD Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program Registry (DoD Registry) [11]. A tabulation of study characteristics is contained in Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study participants are summarized in Table 2.
Table 1

Design characteristics of major studies of U.S. veterans of the first Gulf War

Study

Inception

Design

Administration

Sample

Focus

Survey Pilot Testing

References

Devens Cohort Study

1991

Longitudinal cohort, substudies

In-person surveys and evaluations, mailed surveys

84 units returning from GW through Ft. Devens, MA

Psychological health, domestic and military exposures

Unable to determinea

[7, 2527]

New Orleans

1991

Longitudinal cohort, substudies

In-person surveys and evaluations, mailed surveys, phone

Units based in Louisiana

Psychological and physical health, stressors

Unable to determinea

[8]

VA Registry

1992

Registry, substudies

In-person survey and two-stage health evaluation

Self-nominated veterans of 1st GW and OIF

Physical health, military exposures

Unable to determinea

[28]

Nat’l Health Survey

1992

Longitudinal cohort, substudies

In-person evaluations, mailed surveys, phone surveys

Stratified random sample of GW-deployed and non-deployed

Physical and psychological health, military exposures

Reviewed by OMB

[10, 29]

PA & HI

1993

Cross-sectional

In-person distribution

All active duty, National Guard, and reserve units in PA and HI

Physical and psychological health

Unable to determinea; similar survey used in previous studies

[17]

DoD Registry

1994

Registry, substudies

In-person survey and two-stage health evaluation

Self-nominated veterans of 1st GW and OIF

Physical health, military exposures

Unable to determinea

[30]

Iowa

1995

Cross-sectional, substudies

In-person health evaluation, phone survey

Stratified random sample of GW regular military and NG/Reserve from Iowa

Physical and psychological health, functional status, military exposures

Tested in 24 veterans from the random sample, and 3 non-sampled members of the military

[2]

Seabees

1997

Cross-sectional

Mailed survey, phone survey

Construction Battalion (CB) members who served for 30+ days active duty during GW

Current and past health issues, exposures, behavioral risk factors

Tested in Navy personnel, reviewed by OMB and DoD, test-retest reliability on earlier survey

[12, 31]

OR & WA

1995

Cross-sectional, case–control

In-person health evaluation, mailed survey, phone survey

Random sample of veterans from OR or WA who were deployed to SW Asia between 8/1/90 and 7/31/91

Physical and psychological health, military exposures

Test-retest reliability survey (exposures) in 305 case–control study participants

[32]

Air Nat’l Guard

1994

Cross-sectional, substudies

In-person health evaluation and surveys

GW veterans from a PA-based Air National Guard unit, two AF reserve units (PA, FL), and an active duty AF unit (FL)

Physical health, risk factors for illness

Unable to determinea

[4, 33]

Kansas I

1998

Cross-sectional

Phone survey

KS veterans or reserve members who served on active duty between 8/90 and 7/91

Physical health, military exposures

Health questions tested in MO veterans

[1]

Kansas II

2000

Case–control

In-person survey and blood draw, phone

Veteran KS/MO residents of Kansas City metropolis, who deployed to GW between 8/1/1990 and 7/31/1991, with Gulf War Illness (cases) or not ill (controls)

Gulf War Illness, military exposures

Tested in veterans residing outside of sampling frame

[14]

Millennium Cohort

2000

Longitudinal cohort

Mailed survey, web survey

Stratified random sample of regular active duty, NG, and reserve

Physical health (chronic illness), risk factors

Focus groups and 1000-participant pilot survey (total 2564 tests)

[34]

Military Health Survey

2007

Cross-sectional, substudies

In-person blood sample, phone survey

Stratified random sample of deployed and deployable nondeployed between 8/2/90 and 7/31/91

Physical health, military exposures, behavioral risk factors

200-veteran sample pilot tested survey content, interview procedures

[16, 35, 36]

Abbreviations: AF Air Force, DoD Department of Defense, FL Florida, GW Gulf War, HI Hawaii, KS Kansas, MA Massachusetts, MO Missouri, NG National Guard, OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom, OMB Office of Management and Budget, OR Oregon, PA Pennsylvania, SW southwest, VA Department of Veterans Affairs, WA Washington.

aWe were unable to determine from published sources whether the investigators conducted pilot testing or early validation testing of their survey instruments; however, this was likely done in many instances.

Table 2

Characteristics of participants in major studies of U.S. veterans of the first Gulf War a

 

Devens Cohort Study

New Orleans

VA Registry

Nat’l Health Survey

PA & HI

DoD Registry

Iowa

Seabees

OR & WA

Air Nat’l Guard

Kansas I

Kansas II

Millennium Cohortc

Military Health Survey

Total

Sample size

 

2,949b

1,520d

66,227

20,917

4,344

54,244

3,695

11,868

1,119

3,723

2,030

304

45,372

8,020

226,332

Deployment status

GW

2,345

1,520

66,227

11,441

1,524

46,625

1,896

3,831

1,119

1,154

1,548

304

9,248

5,699

154,481

 

Non-GW

   

9,476

2,727

4,888

1,799

8,037

 

2,569

482

 

36,124

1, 192

67,294

Age, years

<25

      

1,895

       

1,895

 

17-21

  

15,008

       

386

   

15,394

 

22-25

  

14,887

       

426

   

15,313

 

>25

      

1,800

       

1,800

 

26-31

  

14,390

         

5,761

 

20,151

 

>31

  

21,947

         

41,471

 

63,418

 

26-33

          

528

 

10,118

 

10,646

 

>34

          

690

 

35,254

 

35,944

 

Mean

30.2

29

 

31

 

32.5

 

30.6

26.4

35

  

39.1

  

Date of age

 

1991

deploy

deploy

1991

  

8/1990

1990

deploy

1995

1/1991

 

2000

  

Gender

Male

2,137

1,307

59,697

16,715

 

47,301

3,360

11,334

962

3,202

1,766

282

35,460

 

183,523

 

Female

208

213

6,530

4,202

 

6,943

335

534

157

521

264

22

9,895

 

29,824

Race

White

1,975

867

43,182

15,550

3,078

27,936

3,543

10,432

1,041

3,202

1,786

265

31,988

 

144,845

 

Black

176

456

16,527

3,828

 

15,893

 

843

  

162

26

6,501

 

44,412

 

Hispanic

84

182

1,752

  

2,712

    

61

15

2,319

 

7,125

 

Other

110

15

4,766

1,539

977

7,648

152

593

78

521

41

8

4,537

 

20,985

Service

Active

265

 

42,590

8,082

2,291

44,697

1,953

10,266

772

1,680

914

 

21,516

 

135,026

 

NG/Res

  

23,637

   

1,742

 

347

 

1,116

   

26,842

 

NG

1,494

  

5,759

     

1,205

  

10,863

 

19,321

 

Reserve

586

  

7,076

1,714

6,455

 

1,602

 

838

  

12,954

 

31,225

Branch

Army

2,345

 

47,850

13,238d

 

43,504

2,083

 

526

 

1,238

168

20,325

 

131,277

 

Air Force

  

4,148

2,693

 

3,634

532

 

67

3,723

447

28

14,945

 

30,217

 

Marines

  

8,977

2,304

 

2,658

503

 

213

 

142

58

1,569

 

16,424

 

Navy

  

5,252

2,682

 

2,712

 

11,868

313

 

223

49

7,986

 

31,085

 

Other

     

1,682

577

     

547

 

2,806

Rank

Enlisted

982

1,398

61,797

17,553

3,581

 

3,298

10,244

 

3,202

1,705

241

326

 

104,327

 

Officer

155

122

 

3,060

  

397

1,624

  

325

63

  

5,746

 

Noncom

1,208

           

32,219

 

33,427

 

Com

  

3,686

         

11,537

 

15,223

 

Warrant

  

744

288

        

1,290

 

2,322

Reference

 

[7]

[8]

[37]

[10]

[17]

[11]

[38]

[12]

[13]

[4]

[1]

[14]

[15]

[16]

 

Abbreviations: Com Commissioned Officer, DoD Department of Defense, GW Gulf War, HI Hawaii, NG National Guard, Noncom Noncommissioned Officer, OR Oregon, PA Pennsylvania, Res Reserve Service, VA Department of Veterans Affairs, WA Washington.

aSome cells may not total to the full study sample size due to rounding imprecision in published percentages, or missing data or errors in the original publication.

bFigures presented are based on 2,345 participants of Devens Cohort Study, as reported in [7]. Figures for the full cohort of 2,949 are not available in published literature.

cFigures presented are based on the subset of Millennium Cohort participants who served during the era of the first Gulf War. These are unpublished data that were provided to us in a personal communication by Dr. Nancy Crum-Cianflone of the Naval Health Research Center.

dDenotes that the figure is reported variably in multiple publications, or is otherwise uncertain.

Survey instruments

The major domains surveyed by the studies and registries are summarized in Tables 3, 4, and 5. These comprise the domains of mental and physical health (Tables 3 and 4) and deployment-related exposures (Table 5). These areas are commonly assessed during epidemiological research on military cohorts.
Table 3

Health domains surveyed by major studies of U.S. veterans of the first Gulf War

Domain

Devens Cohort Study

New Orleans

VA Registry

Nat’l Health Survey

DoD Registry

PA & HI

Iowa

Seabees

OR & WA

Air Nat’l Guard

Kansas I

Kansas II

Millennium Cohort

Military Health Survey

Medical history and clinical diagnoses

X, XS

XS

X, XS

X

X

 

X, XS

X, XS

X

X

X

X

X

X

Symptoms

X, XS

X, XS

X, XS

X

X

X

X

X, XS

X

X

X

X

X

X

Functional and health status

X, XS

XS

X, XS

X, XS

  

X

X

XS

XS

X

X

X

X

Fatigue, CFS, fibromyalgia, MCS, MSI

X, XS

 

XS

X, XS

 

X

X

X, XS

XS

XS

X

X

X, XS

X

PTSD

X, XS

X, XS

XS

X, XS

Xs

X

X, XS

X, XS

XS

XS

X

X

X

X

Clinical evaluation and validation

Xs

 

X, XS

XS

X

 

X, XS

XS

X, XS

XS

 

X

X

XS

Family and social support

X

XS

    

XS

       

Intelligence

XS

XS

 

XS

  

XS

       

Personality

X

XS

XS

           

Psychiatric status

X, XS

X, XS

XS

XS

XS

X

X

XS

XS

   

X

X

Depression

 

X, XS

 

X, XS

XS

 

X

 

XS

XS

  

X

X

Anxiety

 

X, XS

 

XS

  

X

 

XS

   

X

X

Memory

XS

XS

 

XS

  

XS

 

XS

    

X

Executive function

XS

XS

XS

XS

  

X, XS

X

XS

     

Psychomotor function

XS

XS

 

XS

  

XS

XS

 

XS

    

Quality of life

   

XS

        

X

 

References

[3, 7, 25, 26, 3943]

[3, 8, 42, 4447]

[9, 24, 4852]

[10, 29, 5356]

[30, 57]

[17, 58, 59]

[2, 60, 61]

[12, 31]

[32, 62, 63]

[4]

[1]

[14]

[34, 64, 65]a

[16, 35]

Abbreviations: CFS chronic fatigue syndrome, DoD Department of Defense, HI Hawaii, MCS multiple chemical sensitivity, MSI multisymptom illness, OR Oregon, PA Pennsylvania, PTSD post-traumatic stress disorder, VA Department of Veterans Affairs, WA Washington.

Note: subscripted “S” designates that some data for that domain are only available for a subset of the study sample.

a Additional reference: personal communication by Dr. Nancy Crum-Cianflone of the Naval Health Research Center.

Table 4

Psychological status evaluations used in major studies of U.S. veterans of the first Gulf War

Psychological Domain

Instrument

Acronym

Reference

Family and social support

Social Provision Scale

 

[66, 67]

 

Family Relationship Index

FRI

[68]

 

Social Support Questionnaire

 

[69]

 

Social Support

 

[70]

 

Family Stress

 

[71]

 

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale

FACES-II

[72]

 

Relationship Quality

 

[73]

Intelligence

National Adult Reading Test

NART

[74]

 

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

WAIS

[75]

 

Shipley Institute of Living Scale

SILS

[76, 77]

Personality

Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness Personality Inventory

NEO-PI

[78]

 

Dispositional Resilience Scale

DRS

[79]

 

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

 

[80]

Psychiatric status

Hopkins Symptom Checklist

HSCL

[81, 82]

 

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2

MMPI-2

[83]

 

Personality Assessment Inventory

 

[84]

 

Composite International Diagnostic Interview

CIDI

[85]

 

Symptom Checklist-90-Revised

SCL-90R

[86]

 

Diagnostic Interview Schedule

DIS

[87]

 

Brief Symptom Inventory

BSI

[88, 89]

 

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R

SCID

[90]

 

Health Screening System

HSS

[91]

Depression

Prime-MD/Patient Health Questionnaire

PHQ

[92, 93]

 

Beck Depression Inventory

BDI

[94]

Anxiety

Anxiety Sensitivity Index

ASI

[95]

 

Beck Anxiety Inventory

BAI

[96, 97]

 

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

 

[98]

Cognitive Functioning

Digit Span

 

[75]

 

California Verbal Learning Test

CVLT

[99]

 

Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test

 

[100, 101]

 

Test of Memory Malingering

TOMM

[102]

 

Wechsler Memory Scale

WMS

[103, 104]

 

Recognition Memory Test

 

[105]

 

Heaton Memory Test

 

[106]

 

Continuous Visual Memory Test

 

[107]

 

Auditory Verbal Learning Test

AVLT

[108]

 

Trail-Making Tests A & B

 

[109, 110]

 

Continuous Performance Test

 

[111, 112]

 

Cognitive Failure Questionnaire

 

[113]

 

Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test

 

[114]

 

Stroop Test

 

[115]

 

Performance On-line

 

[116]

 

Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test

 

[117, 118]

 

Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test

PASAT

[119]

 

Controlled Oral Word Association Test

COWAT

[120]

 

Neurobehavioral Evaluation System Continuous Performance Test

 

[121]

 

Behavioral Assessment and Research System

BARS

[122]

 

Symbol Digit

 

[123]

 

Simple Reaction Time

 

[124]

 

Oregon Dual-Task Procedure

 

[125]

Psychomotor function

Grip Strength Test

  
 

Symbol Digit

 

[123]

 

Grooved Pegboard

 

[126]

 

Purdue Pegboard

 

[127]

 

Finger Tapping Test

 

[109, 128]

Health perception

Sickness Impact Profile

 

[129, 130]

 

Barsky Amplification Scale

 

[131]

 

Illness Behavior Questionnaire

 

[132]

Quality of Life

Quality of Life Inventory

 

[133]

Table 5

Deployment-related exposure domains surveyed by major studies of U.S. veterans of the first Gulf War

Exposure

Devens Cohort Study

New Orleans

VA Registry

Nat’l Health Survey

PA & HI

DoD Registry

Iowa

Seabees

OR & WA

Air Nat’l Guard

Kansas I

Kansas II

Millennium Cohort

Military Health Survey

Vaccinations

Any vaccine

X

     

X

  

X

X

X

 

X

Anthrax

X

 

X, XS

X

 

X

 

X

X

   

X

X

Typhoid

  

XS

X

   

X

      

Botulism

  

X, XS

X

 

X

 

X

X

    

X

Immune globulin

  

XS

X

   

X

     

X

Plague

  

XS

X

   

X

     

X

Meningococcus

  

XS

X

   

X

      

Medications

Malaria pills

  

XS

X

 

X

 

XS

      

Pyridostigmine bromide

X

XS

X, XS

X

 

X

X

X, XS

X

X

 

X

 

X

Ciprofloxacin & antibiotics

X

 

XS

X

   

X, XS

      

Airborne exposures

Wore chemical protective gear

X

 

XS

X

X

 

X

X

    

X

X

Petrol fuels/solvents or fumes

  

X

X

 

X

X

XS

X

    

X

Smoke, oil fires, combustion products

X

XS

X, XS

X

X

X

X

X, XS

X

X

 

X

  

Smoke from tent heaters

X

XS

X, XS

X

 

X

X

X, XS

X

    

X

Vehicle exhaust

X

XS

 

X

          

Chemical or biological warfare agents

X

XS

XS

    

XS

X

X

  

X

X

Nerve gas

  

X

X

 

X

X

       

Mustard gas

  

X

X

 

X

X

       

SCUD missile or artillery explosions nearby; debris contact

X

XS

XS

X

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

X

Burning trash or feces

X

XS

X, XS

X

  

X

 

X

   

XS

 

CARC paint

  

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

  

X

 

X

Radiation sources

Depleted uranium

  

X

X

 

X

X

XS

X

  

X

X

X

Microwaves

  

X

X

 

X

X

     

X

 

Sources of infection or contaminants

Contaminated or local food

X

 

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

    

Contaminated or local water

X

XS

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

    

Pesticides

X

XS

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

Live/dead animals or insects

X

 

XS

X

  

X

X

X

  

X

  

Psychological trauma

Life events

X

 

XS

X

X

 

X

 

XS

X

  

X

 

Combat-related stressors

X

X

XS

XS

 

X

X

 

XS

   

X

X

Direct combat duty

X

 

X, XS

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

Witnessed casualties

X

 

XS

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

Contact with POW

  

XS

X

  

X

X

   

X

X

X

Physical injury

X

 

XS

 

X

X

X

  

X

  

XS

X

Suffered forced sexual relations, assault, or sexual harassment

  

XS

X

  

X

 

XS

   

X

X

Behavioral risk factors

Alcohol use

X

XS

XS

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

  

X

X

Tobacco use

X

XS

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

References

[3, 2527, 40, 134]

[3, 8, 45, 135]

[48, 51]

[10, 136, 137]

[17, 58, 59]

[30, 138140]

[2, 38]

[12, 31]

[13, 32, 141]

[4, 33, 142]

[1]

[14]

[34, 143145]a

[35]

Abbreviations: CARC Chemical agent resistant coating, DoD Department of Defense, HI Hawaii, OR Oregon, PA Pennsylvania, POW Prisoner of war, VA Department of Veterans Affairs, WA Washington.

Note: subscripted “S” designates that some data for that domain are only available for a subset of the study sample.

aAdditional reference: personal communication by Dr. Nancy Crum-Cianflone of the Naval Health Research Center.

As described in further detail below, the domains of mental and physical health include health status, functional status, symptoms, fatigue complex (fatigue, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), neurocognitive and/or psychological status, and clinical evaluations and validations. The domains of environmental exposures include vaccinations, medications, airborne exposures, radiation sources, sources of infection or contaminants, psychological trauma, and behavioral risk factors. Each of these exposure domains has multiple subdomains. This review is not a comprehensive representation of all areas of research in these studies, but includes the domains most frequently studied thus far, that are arguably perceived to be the most critical.

Mental and physical health domains

Medical history and clinical diagnoses

Comparable survey measures were used by multiple studies. Eight studies (Devens, Kansas I, Kansas II, National Health Survey, Millennium Cohort, Seabees, Military Health Study, and a VA Registry sub-study) asked whether participants had been diagnosed or treated by a clinician for any of several medical conditions. There was substantial overlap in the conditions queried, including diabetes, depression, asthma, bronchitis, and chronic fatigue syndrome [1, 9, 12, 14, 24, 25, 29, 34, 35, 146]. It was also common to ask the approximate onset date for each condition. In contrast, Oregon-Washington and the VA and DoD registries had open-ended questions about health history, which resulted in a broad range of responses that are not easily comparable [9, 30, 48, 62].

Some instruments were used by only one study. For example, Iowa alone drew questions from instruments such as the National Health Interview Survey [147], the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey [148], and the Agricultural Health Study [2, 149, 150].

Symptoms

Symptoms were assessed by all of the studies. They were typically queried by asking if the veteran had experienced persistent or recurring symptoms during the 12 months prior to the survey, using a symptom checklist. The number of symptoms surveyed varied by study (8 to 78 symptoms). In addition, some studies collected information about symptom severity and date of onset [1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 24, 29, 30, 34, 35, 48, 60, 62, 136, 151153]. New Orleans [8] and Devens [25] evaluated symptoms using the Health Symptom Checklist [81, 82]. Devens also used a variant of the Psychosomatic Complaint Scale (Psychological Well-Being Scale) [26, 79, 154, 155]. In later survey versions, Devens used the Expanded Health Symptom Checklist, which included additional questions on symptom presence during the past 30 days, duration, trajectory, and frequency [3, 25, 26]. National Health Survey used the 15-item Patient Health Questionnaire to measure the occurrence of somatic symptoms during the 4 weeks prior to survey administration [29, 156].

In this subdomain, the registries and Iowa differed the most from the rest of the studies. The registries both used open-ended questions to assess symptoms, instead of a binary format [9, 30, 48]. Iowa asked additional questions about symptoms of asthma and bronchitis from the American Thoracic Society Questionnaire [157, 158].

Functional status and health status

Of the eight studies that evaluated functional status, all used the SF-12, SF-36, or Veterans SF-36, either alone or in combination [24, 16, 29, 34, 39, 53, 63, 159163]. The only study that asked questions to further evaluate functional status was the Iowa study, which administered the Health Utilities Index-Mark 3 [164, 165].

Health status was one of the most commonly assessed domains. All of the studies, with the exception of Pennsylvania-Hawaii, administered a health status evaluation. However, few of the instruments were directly comparable because their response scales varied, making it difficult to compare the responses. For instance, the Military Health, National Health Survey, Air National Guard, Kansas II, VA Registry, and Seabees all asked a general health rating question [4, 9, 12, 14, 24, 29, 35, 48, 153]. However, National Health Survey, Air National Guard, and the VA Registry used a five-category response scale, while Kansas II used a four-category response scale, and the Seabees used a three-category response scale. In addition, the response scale anchor points used by Air National Guard and National Health Survey differed from that used by the VA Registry, and the responses cannot be directly compared.

Chronic multisymptom illness and related diagnoses

It is estimated that chronic multisymptom illness and other symptom-based diagnoses affect up to 25 to 32% of the Gulf War veteran population [23]. Although several instruments have been developed to diagnose these conditions, they are still challenging to distinguish due to the number of their symptoms that overlap with other illnesses. Eleven of the studies collected data on at least one of these illnesses: fatigue, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivity, and multi-symptom illness.

Fatigue was assessed by Iowa, Devens, and a VA Registry substudy using the Chalder Fatigue Scale [2, 60, 166], the Fatigue Severity Scale [40, 167], and the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory [49, 168], respectively. Chronic fatigue syndrome was most commonly identified in National Health Survey, Iowa, VA Registry, Air National Guard, Kansas II, Military Health Study, a Devens substudy, and Seabees [2, 4, 12, 14, 24, 29, 31, 35, 41, 53, 169] using the Centers for Disease Control definition developed by Fukuda [169]. In addition, a National Health Survey substudy validated self-reported chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and other conditions by physician examination [53]. Fibromyalgia was evaluated by four studies (Iowa, a National Health Survey substudy, Military Health Study, and Oregon-Washington) using the American College of Rheumatology criteria [2, 35, 53, 62, 170, 171]. Multiple chemical sensitivity was queried in five studies, but they each used different measures. These measures included the Chemical Odor Intolerance Index and a scale developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [35, 49, 50, 172, 173] and multiple internally-developed measures [12, 25, 40, 41, 174]. Several studies inferred the presence of medically unexplained multisymptom illness based on the symptoms and medical conditions that they surveyed [1, 4, 12, 14, 17, 24, 35, 41, 175, 176]; however, the 2005 National Health Survey asked questions specifically about participants’ experiences with unexplained multisymptom illness. These included years of first and most recent experience, activities and treatments that improve or aggravate the condition, and status relative to initial diagnosis [29, 153]. In addition to questions about chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity, the Military Health Study contained a large number of self-constructed questions about illness symptoms in support of their goal of validating a case definition for Gulf War Illness [16, 35].

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

Combat-related stress was initially hypothesized to be one of the factors responsible for the illnesses afflicting Gulf War veterans [177]; as a result, it was one of the few factors surveyed by all of the studies. The most frequently used instruments included the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (4 studies) [30, 42, 48, 54, 178, 179], PTSD Checklist Military and Civilian versions (6 studies) [2, 8, 25, 26, 29, 40, 60, 63, 64, 180, 181], Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related PTSD (3 studies) [61, 63, 182], Mississippi Scale for Desert Storm War Zone Personnel (3 studies) [4, 8, 42, 183], the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R - Patient Edition (3 studies) [30, 44, 48, 90, 184], and the Impact of Events Scale (2 studies) [51, 58, 185]. Additional PTSD instruments, including the Penn Inventory for PTSD, were used by individual studies [63].

Psychological status

Psychological status is a very broad subdomain and is by far one of the most discordant areas in assessment across studies. It includes several fields, such as family and social support, intelligence, personality, psychiatric status, depression, anxiety, memory, executive function, psychomotor function, health perception, and quality of life. There were a total of 59 tests used in this domain, and all of the studies except Kansas I and Kansas II evaluated at least some of the fields. Many of the survey instruments and tests were only used by one study, but the most frequently used instruments were the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Trail-Making Tests, which were each used by 5 studies to measure intelligence and executive function, respectively. A summary of the instruments used to evaluate psychological status can be found in Table 4.

Clinical evaluations and stored biospecimens

Several of the studies have performed detailed clinical evaluations, including complete physicals with standard laboratory tests (VA and DoD Registries, Iowa, Air National Guard, Oregon-Washington, and a National Health Survey substudy) [4, 9, 13, 24, 30, 53, 165]. Both registries have implemented a battery of additional laboratory tests for veterans requiring further evaluation [9, 30, 52]. The Devens and Military Health studies have performed MRIs [16, 35, 43]. Many of the studies have performed analyses using blood specimens, particularly for clinical laboratory measures; however, for most, it is not clear whether sufficient samples remain to support additional biomarker research. To our knowledge, only Seabees, Military Health Study, and Kansas II have collected biospecimens for future studies [14, 16, 31, 35, 186].

Healthcare expenditures and utilization

Veterans of this era varied in their approaches to utilizing healthcare services, and this variability was noted both within and between deployed and non-deployed veterans. In particular, participation in health registries that involved a clinical evaluation, such as the VA and DOD registries, accounted for a significant number of medical encounters. Health expenditures were directly addressed only by Iowa, using the National Health Interview Survey and the National Medical Expenditure Survey [2, 187189]. Iowa also administered a telephone survey on health utilization to a subsample of their population who suffered from multiple chemical sensitivity [190]. Devens and National Health Survey used rough measures of health utilization, asking the number of clinic visits or hospitalizations [10, 26].

Deployment-related exposure domains

Vaccinations

Receipt of vaccinations prior to or during deployment was assessed by all but two studies (New Orleans and Pennsylvania-Hawaii). The vaccinations queried included anthrax, botulinum, typhoid, meningococcus, plague, a generic “any vaccinations,” and receipt of immune globulin. The form and scope of the questions can be divided roughly into two categories: those that asked whether any vaccines had been received (Iowa, Kansas I, Kansas II, Air National Guard, and Military Health Study) [1, 2, 14, 33, 35], and those that asked if specific vaccines had been received (Devens, VA and DoD Registries, National Health Survey, Seabees, Oregon-Washington, Millennium Cohort, and Military Health Study) [10, 12, 15, 25, 30, 32, 35, 40, 48, 51, 136].

Medications

Three medications were commonly assessed: malaria prophylaxis (any), ciprofloxacin and/or other antibiotics, and pyridostigmine bromide [2, 3, 10, 1214, 31, 35, 48, 51, 134, 138, 142]. Use of these medications was queried using a binary format, or a categorical format that could be collapsed to binary. However, it was common to attempt to elicit additional details of pyridostigmine bromide use, in the form of the total number of pills used, frequency of use, number of days on which a certain dose was exceeded, and the occurrence of specified side effects or feelings of illness after using the pills [2, 13, 35, 51, 134, 136]. Some studies also asked open-ended questions about the use of over-the-counter and prescription medications [13, 35].

Airborne exposures

Many of the Gulf War studies assessed exposure to airborne toxins. These contaminants included petroleum fuels, solvents, fumes, smoke, combustion products from oil fires or incinerated trash/feces, tent heater smoke, vehicle exhaust, chemical agent resistant compound paint, debris from missile or artillery explosions, and chemical or biological warfare agents.

All of the studies except Kansas I asked questions regarding airborne exposures. These exposures were most commonly assessed using a binary response or a categorical format that could be collapsed to binary. In addition, several studies asked additional questions about the number of days or times exposed to airborne toxins; these types of questions had either open-ended or categorical response types [3, 10, 1214, 17, 2527, 31, 35, 38, 48, 51, 58, 136, 138, 142, 143]. In addition, Iowa asked whether the exposure was temporally associated with feelings of illness [38].

Radiation sources

The most commonly surveyed sources of radiation were depleted uranium and microwaves. Most of the studies queried these exposures using a binary or a categorical format that could be collapsed to binary [10, 13, 31, 38, 48, 138, 144]. In addition, National Health Survey and Iowa both asked about time period of exposure [38, 136].

Military Health Study and Kansas II evaluated depleted uranium exposure using questions regarding contact with destroyed enemy vehicles (or inhalation of smoke from vehicles) that may have been struck with artillery rounds containing depleted uranium [14], and exposure to the Camp Doha fire. They also asked whether participants had undergone a urine test for the presence of depleted uranium, the timing and provider of the test, and the results [35].

Sources of infection or contaminants

Many of the studies surveyed their participants regarding exposure to potential sources of infection or contamination, which included food, water, pesticides, and local fauna. The response formats for most of the questions were at least binary [10, 1214, 25, 32, 33, 35, 38, 48, 51, 136, 138, 142]. Similar question phrasing was used for National Health Survey, Iowa, and the VA Registry [38, 48, 136] and furthermore, National Health Survey and Iowa used the same three-point scale to describe the length of exposure [38, 136]. Devens and a New Orleans subset also used identical tools to evaluate exposures [3, 25, 45]. Additional exposure information was gathered in three studies. A VA registry subset was asked about the frequency of each exposure’s occurrence [51]. Devens inquired about water and pesticide use, including source of drinking water, unusual smell or tastes in the water, any illnesses or health problems caused by the drinking water, pesticide name, who sprayed the pesticide, presence of any acute symptoms, and exposure frequency [25]. Military Health Study also asked questions about frequency and quantity of application [35].

Psychological trauma

The experiencing of psychologically stressful events was one of the primary factors surveyed in the initial studies of veterans of the Gulf War. The perceived importance of this factor is demonstrated by its inclusion in all of the studies except Kansas I. The most commonly studied items were life events and combat-related stressors, the latter of which included direct combat duty, witnessing of casualties, POW contact, physical injury, and the experience of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault or rape.

Because combat-related traumatic events have long been recognized for their effects on psychological health, some tools for their assessment existed at the initiation of the Gulf War studies. Instruments used in these studies included the Combat Exposure Scale [191, 192], the Mississippi Scale (Operation Desert Storm version) [183], the Keane Combat Scale [193], the Operation Desert Storm Stress Exposure Scale [194], and the Haley Gulf War Combat Exposure Index [35]. With the exception of the Keane Combat Scale (used by Oregon-Washington, Military Health Study, and VA Registry), each instrument was used by only one study. In addition, many studies incorporated self-constructed questions regarding lifetime and combat-related stressors. Thus, creating a framework of direct comparability for this domain may be challenging.

Behavioral risk factors

All but Kansas I evaluated behavioral risk factors. The most common of these were alcohol and tobacco use. Alcohol use was primarily evaluated using self-constructed questions about current drinking status, alcohol abuse, and number of drinks consumed [2, 4, 10, 12, 13, 17, 25, 35, 45, 51, 195, 196]. However, Iowa, National Health Survey, and Millennium Cohort used validated instruments. Iowa used the CAGE (Cut back, Annoyance, Guilt, Eye-openers) questionnaire [2, 197], and both National Health Survey and Millennium Cohor used the alcohol component of the Patient Health Questionnaire [92].Tobacco use was most commonly queried by asking participants about their smoking status (never, past, or current smoker) [24, 10, 1214, 17, 25, 35, 45, 48, 139, 198]. Additional information obtained varied by study, but included increases or decreases in daily smoking habits [198] and whether participants had smoked at least 100 cigarettes [51, 198].

Validation studies

The studies reviewed herein all gathered self-reported data, which has well-documented limitations, including recall bias and lack of correlation with objective measures. In light of these challenges to data quality, several studies performed reliability and validation analyses, using test-retest methods and comparing self-reported data to clinical evaluations and medical records.

Seabees, Iowa, Millennium Cohort, and Oregon-Washington measured the internal reliability of self-reported survey data, including demographics, physical and functional status, symptoms, health histories, vaccinations, and exposures, using test-retest methods. The results of these studies were mixed, particularly with respect to self-reported exposures, diagnosed health conditions, and symptoms. The Seabees study [31] reported high reliability of demographic attributes (kappas 0.89-1.00), and moderate reliability of exposures (0.60-0.70) and “other” survey items (0.51-0.67). However, self-reported diagnoses and symptoms had widely ranging kappa coefficients of −0.01-1.00 and −0.01-0.86, respectively [31]. The Iowa cohort reported test-retest agreement percentages of 89.6-97.0% and kappa coefficients of 0.39-0.70 for self-reported medical and psychiatric concerns [2]. In the Oregon-Washington evaluation of self-reported exposure reliability, only eight of thirteen exposures had a kappa coefficient statistically greater than 0.4, reflecting poor agreement on the majority of measures [32]. The Oregon-Washington investigators also assessed self-reported exposure misclassification by comparing reported exposure to anthrax and botulinum toxoid vaccines, chemical warfare agents, and pyridostigmine bromide to reported deployment periods, as each exposure was only possible during known periods of time. The results of this comparison suggested that these exposures may be overreported among certain subgroups of veterans [32]. Similarly, an analysis of National Health Survey data found evidence of reporting bias in self-reported anthrax vaccination data [199]. We note that it has been difficult to validate reported exposures due to the absence of objective documentation.

Clinical evaluations and medical records were used to externally validate self-reported information by several studies. As was the case for test-retest reliability analyses, the results were mixed. A New Orleans substudy examined the validity of survey-based PTSD assessments by calculating the agreement between the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID) and other PTSD diagnostic measures (agreement 82-100%) [44]. The Seabees validation study, which compared personnel and medical records to survey responses, found kappa coefficients of −0.02-0.48 for self-reported diagnosed illness, 0.41-0.76 for demographic traits, and 0.59-0.66 for “other” characteristics [31]. In the National Health Survey, comparison of reported reasons for clinic visits and hospitalizations to medical records found agreement rates greater than 90% [10, 29], and clinical evaluations confirmed an increased risk of certain conditions among deployed veterans [53]. The Iowa study drew on state registries to validate reported birth defects and cancers [60]. In addition, a case validation study in a subset of Iowa cohort members found that only 32% of those who originally reported depressive symptoms met criteria for lifetime depression after a later SCID-IV interview; however, multiple factors may have contributed to this difference [200]. The Millennium Cohort found excellent negative agreement (generally > 95%) and moderate positive agreement when comparing self-reported medical conditions to Department of Defense electronic medical records, suggesting that self-reported data may be useful in excluding the presence of conditions [146]. Finally, in a small-sample comparison of thirteen self-reported medical conditions to medical records, the Devens Cohort Study observed low-moderate kappa coefficients of 0.35-0.64 for most conditions [39]. These heterogeneous findings regarding reliability and validity lend support to concerns about the utility of self-reported data, and emphasize the importance of evaluating reliability and validity early in the study implementation period, and including objective data sources, when resources permit.

Conclusions

We compared the survey tools used in keystone epidemiologic studies and registries of Gulf War Era veterans, with the intent of highlighting commonalities and differences in efforts aimed at understanding health and risk factors. It is apparent that there are many areas of at least minimal concordance with respect to question and response format. We note that some investigators intentionally drew on the materials used by prior studies, establishing areas of commonality [1, 12, 60]. Among mental and physical health domains, there was moderate concordance among the measures used to assess medical history, symptoms, functional status, and the diagnoses of chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Most of the exposure assessment instruments also have response formats that can be reduced to the same binary framework. These similarities suggest that meta-analyses of study-level or individual-level data could be performed on several of the subdomains, with varying degrees of loss of detail.

In contrast, there is substantial variation in survey instruments for the subdomains of health status, PTSD, psychological status, psychological trauma, and the diagnoses of fatigue, multiple chemical sensitivity, and multisymptom illness. The nature of this variability differs by subdomain. While this does not preclude the use of meta-analytic techniques, it requires the analyst to carefully consider issues of heterogeneity and whether the instruments demonstrate convergent validity.

We cannot overemphasize the importance of considering the impact of heterogeneity in study design, population, sampling methods, quality, and generalizability to the validity of meta-analyses. While it is possible to carefully combine data from similarly-conducted epidemiologic studies [201], the practical reality is that explicitly accommodating design and quality differences to yield valid inference in analyses of this type remains an extremely difficult (at times impossible) task [202, 203]. In addition, restrictions on the sharing of study data may present a logistical challenge to the performance of individual-level joint analyses. This places additional emphasis on the need for investigators to consent future study participants using language that explicitly permits recontact for future studies or (at minimum) sharing of de-identified data under approved protocols for Gulf War Era related research.

Based on our review of the existing studies, we suggest three considerations for future studies of Gulf War Era veterans. First, to engage Gulf War Era research experts during study planning. Second, to gather blood for genetic and proteomic analyses, and link the specimens to survey and medical/administrative records. Third, to carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of the survey instruments used in the past, and select instruments that are appropriately validated, detailed, and compatible with previous studies. These three activities will support the development of unified data and biospecimen resources with opportunities for analytic collaborations. Through such efforts, epidemiologic research can continue to make important strides that advance our collective ability to enhance the health of these veterans.

Disclaimer

The contents of this manuscript do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.

Abbreviations

AF: 

Air Force

CAGE: 

Cut back, Annoying, Guilt, Eye-openers

CARC: 

Chemical agent resistant coating

CFS: 

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Com: 

Commissioned officer

DoD: 

United States Department of Defense

DSM-III-R: 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised

FL: 

Florida

GW: 

Gulf War

HI: 

Hawaii

KS: 

Kansas

MA: 

Massachusetts

MCS: 

Multiple chemical sensitivity

MO: 

Missouri

MRI: 

Magnetic resonance imaging

MSI: 

Multisymptom illness

NG: 

National Guard

Noncom: 

Noncommissioned officer

OIF: 

Operation Iraqi Freedom

OMB: 

Office of Management and Budget

OR: 

Oregon

PA: 

Pennsylvania

PTSD: 

Post-traumatic stress disorder

POW: 

Prisoner of war

Res: 

Reserve service

SCID: 

Structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R

Seabees: 

Construction Battalion (CB)

SF: 

Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Survey

SW: 

Southwest

US: 

United States of America

VA: 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs

WA: 

Washington.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the helpful perspectives and materials provided by Drs. Jeannie Beckham, Nancy Crum-Cianflone, Scott McDonald, Susan Proctor, and Robert F. Woolson. Authors RBM, CMT, EH, MJ, and DP were supported by award #585, Cooperative Studies Program (CSP), Office of Research and Development, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. GDH manages the program that provides individual study funding, including CSP #585.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Durham Epidemiologic Research and Information Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center
(2)
Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University
(3)
Department of Medicine, Duke University
(4)
Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs
(5)
Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center
(6)
Health Services Research and Development, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center
(7)
Clinical Informatics

References

  1. Steele L: Prevalence and patterns of Gulf War illness in Kansas veterans: association of symptoms with characteristics of person, place, and time of military service. Am J Epidemiol. 2000, 152: 992-1002. 10.1093/aje/152.10.992.Google Scholar
  2. The Iowa Persian Gulf Study Group: Self-reported illness and health status among Gulf War veterans: a population-based study. JAMA. 1997, 277: 238-245.Google Scholar
  3. Proctor S: Health status of Persian Gulf War veterans: self-reported symptoms, environmental exposures, and the effect of stress. Int J Epidemiol. 1998, 27: 1000-1010. 10.1093/ije/27.6.1000.Google Scholar
  4. Fukuda K, Nisenbaum R, Stewart G, Thompson W, Robin L, Washko R, Noah D, Barrett D, Randall B, Herwaldt B: Chronic multisymptom illness affecting Air Force veterans of the Gulf War. JAMA. 1998, 280: 981-988. 10.1001/jama.280.11.981.Google Scholar
  5. Kang HK, Bullman TA: Mortality among U.S. veterans of the Persian Gulf War. N Engl J Med. 1996, 335: 1498-1504. 10.1056/NEJM199611143352006.Google Scholar
  6. Gray GC, Kang HK: Healthcare utilization and mortality among veterans of the Gulf War. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006, 361: 553-569. 10.1098/rstb.2006.1816.Google Scholar
  7. Wolfe J, Kelly JM, Bucsela ML: Fort Devens reunion survey: report of phase I. Returning Persian Gulf Troops: First Year Findings. 1992, West Haven: Department of Veterans Affairs, 19-44.Google Scholar
  8. Brailey K, Vasterling J, Sutker P: Psychological Aftermath of Participation in the Persian Gulf War. The Environment and Mental Health: A Guide for Clinicians. Edited by: Lundberg A. 1998, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 83-101.Google Scholar
  9. Murphy FM, Kang H, Dalager NA, Lee KY, Allen RE, Mather SH, Kizer KW: The health status of Gulf War veterans: lessons learned from the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Registry. Mil Med. 1999, 164: 327-331.Google Scholar
  10. Kang H, Mahan CM, Lee KY, Magee CA, Murphy FM: Illnesses among United States veterans of the Gulf War: a population-based survey of 30,000 veterans. J Occup Environ Med. 2000, 42: 491-501. 10.1097/00043764-200005000-00006.Google Scholar
  11. Stuart JA, Murray KM, Ursano RJ, Wright KM: The Department of Defense's Persian Gulf War registry year 2000: an examination of veterans' health status. Mil Med. 2002, 167: 121-128.Google Scholar
  12. Gray GC, Reed RJ, Kaiser KS, Smith TC, Gastanaga VM: Self-reported symptoms and medical conditions among 11,868 Gulf War-era veterans: the Seabee Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2002, 155: 1033-1044. 10.1093/aje/155.11.1033.Google Scholar
  13. Spencer PS, McCauley LA, Lapidus JA, Lasarev M, Joos SK, Storzbach D: Self-reported exposures and their association with unexplained illness in a population-based case–control study of Gulf War veterans. J Occup Environ Med. 2001, 43: 1041-1056.Google Scholar
  14. Steele L, Sastre A, Gerkovich MM, Cook MR: Complex factors in the etiology of Gulf War Illness: wartime exposures and risk factors in veteran subgroups. Environ Health Perspect. 2012, 120: 112-118.Google Scholar
  15. Smith B, Leard CA, Smith TC, Reed RJ, Ryan MA: Anthrax vaccination in the Millennium Cohort: validation and measures of health. Am J Prev Med. 2007, 32: 347-353. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.015.Google Scholar
  16. Iannacchione VG, Dever JA, Bann CM, Considine KA, Creel D, Carson CP, Best H, Haley RW: Validation of a research case definition of Gulf War Illness in the 1991 US military population. Neuroepidemiology. 2011, 37: 129-140. 10.1159/000331478.Google Scholar
  17. Stretch RH, Bliese PD, Marlowe DH, Wright KM, Knudson KH, Hoover CH: Physical health symptomatology of Gulf War-era service personnel from the states of Pennsylvania and Hawaii. Mil Med. 1995, 160: 131-136.Google Scholar
  18. National Institute of Health: The Persian Gulf experience and health: NIH Technology Assessment Workshop Panel. JAMA. 1994, 272: 391-396. 10.1001/jama.1994.03520050071033.Google Scholar
  19. Persian Gulf Veterans Coordinating Board: Unexplained illnesses among Desert Storm veterans: a search for causes, treatment, and cooperation. Arch Intern Med. 1995, 155: 262-268. 10.1001/archinte.1995.00430030050005.Google Scholar
  20. Institute of Medicine: Health Consequences of Service During the Persian Gulf War: Recommendations for Research and Information Systems. 1996, Washington: The National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Institute of Medicine: Gulf War and Health. 1–8 volumes. 2000–2010, Washington: The National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Institute of Medicine: Gulf War and Health, Volume 8: Update of Health Effects of Serving in the Gulf War. 2010, Washington: The National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Scientific Findings and Recommendations. 2008, Washington: U.S. Department of Veterans AffairsGoogle Scholar
  24. Hallman WK, Kipen HM, Diefenbach M, Boyd K, Kang H, Leventhal H, Wartenberg D: Symptom patterns among Gulf War registry veterans. Am J Public Health. 2003, 93: 624-630. 10.2105/AJPH.93.4.624.Google Scholar
  25. White R, Wolfe J, Proctor S, Keane TM: Devens Cohort Study: Time 3. 1994–1996, Boston: Boston Environmental Hazards Center and National Center for PTSD, Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Boston Healthcare SystemGoogle Scholar
  26. Wolfe J, Mark W, Keane T: Ft. Devens ODS Reunion Survey: Time 2. 1991–1993, Boston: National Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Boston Healthcare SystemGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolfe J, Mark W, Keane T: Ft. Devens ODS Reunion Survey: Time 1. 1991–1993, Boston: National Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Boston Healthcare SystemGoogle Scholar
  28. Committee on the Evaluation of the Department of Veterans Affairs Uniform Case Assessment Protocol (Institute of Medicine): Adequacy of the VA Persian Gulf Registry and Uniform Case Assessment Protocol. 1998, Washington: National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Kang H, Li B, Mahan CM, Eisen SA, Engel CJ: Health of US veterans of 1991 Gulf War: a follow-up survey in 10 years. J Occup Environ Med. 2009, 51: 401-410. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181a2feeb.Google Scholar
  30. Joseph SC, Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program Evaluation Team: A comprehensive clinical evaluation of 20,000 Persian Gulf War veterans. Mil Med. 1997, 162: 149-155.Google Scholar
  31. Gray GC, Kaiser KS, Hawksworth AW, Hall FW, Barrett-Connor E: Increased postwar symptoms and psychological morbidity among U.S. Navy Gulf War veterans. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999, 60: 758-766.Google Scholar
  32. McCauley LA, Joos SK, Spencer PS, Lasarev M, Shuell T, Members of the Portland Environmental Hazards Research Center: Strategies to assess validity of self-reported exposures during the Persian Gulf War. Environ Res. 1999, 81: 195-205. 10.1006/enrs.1999.3977.Google Scholar
  33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Unexplained illness among Persian Gulf War veterans in an Air National Guard Unit: preliminary report--August 1990-March 1995. MMWR. 1995, 44: 443-447.Google Scholar
  34. Gray GC, Chesbrough KB, Ryan MA, Amoroso P, Boyko EJ, Gackstetter GD, Hooper TI, Riddle JR: The Millennium Cohort Study: a 21-year prospective cohort study of 140,000 military personnel. Mil Med. 2002, 167: 483-488.Google Scholar
  35. Department of Veterans Affairs: VA Contract V549P-0027: Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Research, Task Order 2. 2007–2010, Washington: Awarded to University of Texas, SouthwesternGoogle Scholar
  36. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General: Review of Contract No. VA549-P-0027 Between the Department of Veterans Affairs and The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas (UTSWMC) for Gulf War Illness Research. 2009, Washington: VA Office of Inspector GeneralGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith TC, Smith B, Ryan MA, Gray GC, Hooper TI, Heller JM, Dalager NA, Kang HK, Gackstetter GD: Ten years and 100,000 participants later: occupational and other factors influencing participation in US Gulf War health registries. J Occup Environ Med. 2002, 44: 758-768.Google Scholar
  38. Carney CP, Sampson TR, Voelker M, Woolson R, Thorne P, Doebbeling BN: Women in the Gulf War: combat experience, exposures, and subsequent health care use. Mil Med. 2003, 168: 654-661.Google Scholar
  39. Proctor SP, Harley R, Wolfe J, Heeren T, White RF: Health-related quality of life in Persian Gulf War veterans. Mil Med. 2001, 166: 510-519.Google Scholar
  40. Wolfe J, Proctor SP, Keane TM: Devens Cohort Study: Time 4. 1997–1998, Boston: Boston Environmental Hazards Center and National Center for PTSD, Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Boston Healthcare SystemGoogle Scholar
  41. Proctor S, Heaton KJ, White RF, Wolfe J: Chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue syndrome in Gulf War veterans: a brief report. J Occup Environ Med. 2001, 43: 359-364.Google Scholar
  42. Lindem K, Heeren T, White RF, Proctor SP, Krengel M, Vasterling JJ, Sutker PB, Wolfe J, Keane TM: Neuropsychological performance in Gulf War era veterans: traumatic stress symptomatology and exposure to chemical–biological warfare agents. J Psychopathol Behav. 2003, 25: 105-119. 10.1023/A:1023394932263.Google Scholar
  43. Heaton KJ, Palumbo CL, Proctor SP, Killiany RJ, Yurgelun-Todd DA, White RF: Quantitative magnetic resonance brain imaging in US Army veterans of the 1991 Gulf War potentially exposed to sarin and cyclosarin. Neurotoxicology. 2007, 28: 761-769. 10.1016/j.neuro.2007.03.006.Google Scholar
  44. Sutker PB, Uddo M, Brailey K, Allain AN, Errera P: Psychological symptoms and psychiatric diagnoses in Operation Desert Storm troops serving graves registration duty. J Trauma Stress. 1994, 7: 159-171. 10.1002/jts.2490070202.Google Scholar
  45. Vasterling JJ, Brailey K, Tomlin H, Rice J, Sutker PB: Olfactory functioning in Gulf War-era veterans: relationships to war-zone duty, self-reported hazards exposures, and psychological distress. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2003, 9: 407-418.Google Scholar
  46. Sutker PB, Davis JM, Uddo M, Ditta SR: War zone stress, personal resources, and PTSD in Persian Gulf War returnees. J Abnorm Psychol. 1995, 104: 444-452.Google Scholar
  47. Vasterling JJ, Brailey K, Constans JI, Sutker PB: Attention and memory dysfunction in posttraumatic stress disorder. Neuropsychology. 1998, 12: 125-133.Google Scholar
  48. Department of Veterans Affairs. Persian Gulf Registry Code Sheet. Form 10-9009a.http://www.gulflink.org/gwr/10-9009a.pdf,
  49. Fiedler N, Giardino N, Natelson B, Ottenweller JE, Weisel C, Lioy P, Lehrer P, Ohman-Strickland P, Kelly-McNeil K, Kipen H: Responses to controlled diesel vapor exposure among chemically sensitive Gulf War veterans. Psychosom Med. 2004, 66: 588-598. 10.1097/01.psy.0000127872.53932.75.Google Scholar
  50. Kipen HM, Hallman W, Kang H, Fiedler N, Natelson BH: Prevalence of chronic fatigue and chemical sensitivities in Gulf Registry veterans. Arch Environ Health. 1999, 54: 313-318. 10.1080/00039899909602493.Google Scholar
  51. Boyd KC, Hallman WK, Wartenberg D, Fiedler N, Brewer NT, Kipen HM: Reported exposures, stressors, and life events among Gulf War Registry veterans. J Occup Environ Med. 2003, 45: 1247-1256. 10.1097/01.jom.0000099980.38936.09.Google Scholar
  52. Koch TR, Emory TS: Evaluation of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms following Persian Gulf War exposure. Mil Med. 2005, 170: 696-700.Google Scholar
  53. Eisen SA, Kang H, Murphy FM, Blanchard M, Reda DJ, Henderson W, Toomey R, Jackson L, Alpern R, Parks B: Gulf War veterans' health: medical evaluation of a U.S. cohort. Ann Intern Med. 2005, 142: 881-890.Google Scholar
  54. Toomey R, Kang H, Karlinsky JB, Baker D, Vasterling J, Alpern R, Reda DJ, Henderson W, Murphy FM, Eisen SA: Mental health of US Gulf War veterans 10 years after the war. Brit J Psychiat. 2007, 190: 385-393. 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.019539.Google Scholar
  55. Toomey R, Alpern R, Vasterling J, Baker D, Reda DJ, Lyons M, Henderson W, Kang H, Eisen SA, Murphy FM: Neuropsychological functioning of U.S. Gulf War veterans 10 years after the war. J Int Neuropsych Soc. 2009, 15: 717-729. 10.1017/S1355617709990294.Google Scholar
  56. Wallin MT, Wilken J, Alfaro MH, Rogers C, Mahan C, Chapman JC, Fratto T, Sullivan C, Kang H, Kane R: Neuropsychologic assessment of a population-based sample of Gulf War veterans. Cogn Behav Neurol. 2009, 22: 155-166. 10.1097/WNN.0b013e3181b278e8.Google Scholar
  57. Roy MJ, Koslowe PA, Kroenke K, Magruder C: Signs, symptoms, and ill-defined conditions in Persian Gulf War veterans: findings from the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program. Psychosom Med. 1998, 60: 663-668.Google Scholar
  58. Stretch RH, Marlowe DH, Wright KM, Bliese PD, Knudson KH, Hoover CH: Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among Gulf War veterans. Mil Med. 1996, 161: 407-410.Google Scholar
  59. Stretch RH, Bliese PD, Marlowe DH, Wright KM, Knudson KH, Hoover CH: Psychological health of Gulf War-era military personnel. Mil Med. 1996, 161: 257-261.Google Scholar
  60. Doebbeling BN, Jones MF, Hall DB, Clarke WR, Woolson RF, Torner JC, Burmeister LF, Snyders-Crumley T, Barrett DH, Falter KH: Methodologic issues in a population-based health survey of Gulf War veterans. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002, 55: 477-487. 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00517-0.Google Scholar
  61. Barrash J, Denburg NL, Moser DJ, Woolson RF, Schumacher AJ, Doebbeling BN: Credibility of neuropsychological performances of Persian Gulf War veterans and military control subjects participating in clinical epidemiological research. Mil Med. 2007, 172: 697-707.Google Scholar
  62. Bourdette DN, McCauley LA, Barkhuizen A, Johnston W, Wynn M, Joos SK, Storzbach D, Shuell T, Sticker D: Symptom factor analysis, clinical findings, and functional status in a population-based case control study of Gulf War unexplained illness. J Occup Environ Med. 2001, 43: 1026-1040.Google Scholar
  63. Storzbach D, Rohlman DS, Anger WK, Binder LM, Campbell KA: Neurobehavioral deficits in Persian Gulf veterans: additional evidence from a population-based study. Environ Res. 2001, 85: 1-13. 10.1006/enrs.2000.4100.Google Scholar
  64. Smith TC, Wingard DL, Ryan MA, Kritz-Silverstein D, Slymen DJ, Sallis JF: PTSD prevalence, associated exposures, and functional health outcomes in a large, population-based military cohort. Public Health Rep. 2009, 124: 90-102.Google Scholar
  65. Proctor S, Wells TS, Jones KA, Boyko EJ, Smith TC: Examination of post-service health-related quality of life among rural and urban military members of the Millennium Cohort Study. J Rur Soc Sci. 2011, 26: 32-56.Google Scholar
  66. Cutrona CE: Social support and stress in the transition to parenthood. J Abnorm Psychol. 1984, 93: 378-390.Google Scholar
  67. Cutrona CE, Russell D: The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Advances in Personal Relationships. Edited by: Jones WH, Perlman D. 1987, Greenwich: JAI Press, 37-67. 1Google Scholar
  68. Holahan CJ, Moos RH: Life stressors, personal and social resources, and depression: a 4-year structural model. J Abnorm Psychol. 1991, 100: 31-38.Google Scholar
  69. Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Shearin EN, Pierce GR: A brief measure of social support: practical and theoretical implications. J Soc Pers Relat. 1987, 4: 497-510. 10.1177/0265407587044007.Google Scholar
  70. Steiner A, Raube K, Stuck AE, Aronow HU, Draper D, Rubenstein LZ, Beck JC: Measuring psychosocial aspects of well-being in older community residents: performance of four short scales. Gerontologist. 1996, 36: 54-62. 10.1093/geront/36.1.54.Google Scholar
  71. McCubbin HI, Thompson AI, McCubbin MA: Family Assessment: Resiliency, Coping, and Adaptation-Inventories for Research and Practice. Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes. Edited by: McCubbin HI, Patterson J, Wilson L. 1996, Madison: University of Wisconsin System, 103-178.Google Scholar
  72. Olson DH, Bell R, Portner J: FACES II: Family Adaptibility and Cohesion Evaluation Scale. Family Inventories. Edited by: Olson D, McCubbin HI, Barnes LA, Musen M, Wilson M. 1982, St. Paul: Department of Family Social Science, University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  73. Kukla R, Schlenger W, Fairbank J, Hough R, Jordan B, Marmar C, Weiss D: Trauma and the Vietnam War Generation: Report of Findings from the National Vietnam Veterans' Readjustment Study (NVVRS). 1990, New York: Brunner/MazelGoogle Scholar
  74. Nelson H: The National Adult Reading Test (NART): Test Manual. 1982, Windsor: NFERGoogle Scholar
  75. Wechsler D: Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. 1945, New York: Psychological CorporationGoogle Scholar
  76. Shipley W: A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. J Psychol. 1940, 9: 371-377. 10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704.Google Scholar
  77. Shipley W: Institute of Living Scale. 1946, Los Angeles: Western Psychological ServicesGoogle Scholar
  78. Costa PT, McCrae RR: The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. 1985, Odessa: Psychological Assessment ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  79. Bartone PT, Ursano RJ, Wright KM, Ingraham LH: The impact of a military air disaster on the health of assistance workers. A prospective study. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1989, 177: 317-328. 10.1097/00005053-198906000-00001.Google Scholar
  80. Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG: Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. 1975, London: Hodder and StoughtonGoogle Scholar
  81. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L: The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci. 1974, 19: 1-15. 10.1002/bs.3830190102.Google Scholar
  82. Derogatis LR, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L: The Hopkins Symptom Checklist: A Measure of Primary Symptom Dimensions. Psychological Measurements in Psychopharmacology. Edited by: Pichot P. 1974, Paris: Karger, 79-110. 7Google Scholar
  83. Butcher JN, Dahlstrom WG, Tellegen A, Kaemmer B: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for Administration and Scoring. 1989, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
  84. Morey L: The Personality Assessment Inventory Professional Manual. 1991, Lutz: Psychological Assessment ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  85. Andrews G, Peters L: The psychometric properties of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998, 33: 80-88. 10.1007/s001270050026.Google Scholar
  86. Derogatis LR: The Symptoms Checklist-90. 1983, Towson: Clinical Psychometric ResearchGoogle Scholar
  87. Robins L, Helzer J: Diagnostic interview schedule (DIS), version III-R. 1991, St. Louis: Washington University School of MedicineGoogle Scholar
  88. Derogatis LR, Spencer PM: The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual. 1982, Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric ResearchGoogle Scholar
  89. Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N: The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med. 1983, 13: 595-605. 10.1017/S0033291700048017.Google Scholar
  90. Spitzer RL, Williams J, Gibbon M: Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM-III-R, Version NP-V. 1987, New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric InstituteGoogle Scholar
  91. Kovera CA, Anger WK, Campbell KA, Binder LM, Storzbach D, Davis KL, Rohlman DS: Computer-administration of questionnaires: a health screening system (HSS) developed for veterans. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1996, 18: 511-518. 10.1016/0892-0362(96)00042-6.Google Scholar
  92. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group: Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1737-1744. 10.1001/jama.282.18.1737.Google Scholar
  93. Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Kroenke K, Linzer M, deGruy FV, Hahn SR, Brody D, Johnson JG: Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA. 1994, 272: 1749-1756. 10.1001/jama.1994.03520220043029.Google Scholar
  94. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J: An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961, 4: 561-571. 10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004.Google Scholar
  95. Peterson RA, Reiss S: Anxiety Sensitivity Index Manual. 1987, Worthington: IDS PublishingGoogle Scholar
  96. Beck AT, Epstein N, Brown G, Steer RA: An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988, 56: 893-897.Google Scholar
  97. Beck AT, Steer RA: Beck Anxiety Inventory Manual. 1993, San Antonio: Psychological Corporation HarcourtGoogle Scholar
  98. Spielberger CD, Sydeman SJ: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and State-Trait Anger Expression. The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcome Assessment. Edited by: Maruish ME. 1994, Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates, 292-321.Google Scholar
  99. Delis DC, Kramer JH, Kaplan E, Ober B: California Verbal Learning Test Manual. 1987, New York: Psychological CorporationGoogle Scholar
  100. Rey A: L'examen clinique en psychologic. [The clinical examination in psychology]. 1964, Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar
  101. Schmidt M: Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test: A Handbook. 1996, Los Angeles: Western Psychological ServicesGoogle Scholar
  102. Tombaugh TN: Test of Memory and Malingering. 1996, Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, IncGoogle Scholar
  103. Wechsler D: A standardized memory scale for clinical use. J Psychol. 1945, 19: 87-95. 10.1080/00223980.1945.9917223.Google Scholar
  104. Wechsler D: Wechsler Memory Scale, Third Edition Manual. 1997, San Antonio: Psychological CorporationGoogle Scholar
  105. Warrington E: The Recognition Memory Test: Manual. 1984, London: NFER-NelsonGoogle Scholar
  106. Heaton R, Grant I, Matthews C: Comprehensive Norms for an Expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery: Demographic Corrections, Research Findings, and Clinical Applications. 1991, Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources IncGoogle Scholar
  107. Trahan DE, Larrabee GJ: Continuous Visual Memory Test Professional Manual. 1988, Odessa: Psychological Assessment ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  108. Barrash J, Suhr J, Manzel K: Detecting poor effort and malingering with an expanded version of the Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLTX): validation with clinical samples. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2004, 26: 125-140. 10.1076/jcen.26.1.125.23928.Google Scholar
  109. Reitan R, Wolfson D: The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Theory and Clinical Interpretation. 1985, Tucson: Neuropsychology PressGoogle Scholar
  110. Army Individual Test Battery: Manual of Directions and Scoring. 1944, Washington: War Department, Adjutant General's OfficeGoogle Scholar
  111. Conners CK: Conners' Continuous Performance Test Computer Program User's Guide. 1992, Toronto: Multi-Health SystemsGoogle Scholar
  112. Kay GG, Berman B, Mockoviak SH, Morris CE, Reeves D, Starbuck V, Sukenik E, Harris AG: Initial and steady-state effects of diphenhydramine and loratadine on sedation, cognition, mood, and psychomotor performance. Arch Intern Med. 1997, 157: 2350-2356. 10.1001/archinte.1997.00440410082009.Google Scholar
  113. Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR: The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Br J Clin Psychol. 1982, 21: 1-16. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x.Google Scholar
  114. Berg EA: A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. J Gen Psychol. 1948, 39: 15-22. 10.1080/00221309.1948.9918159.Google Scholar
  115. Stroop JR: Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol. 1935, 18: 643-661.Google Scholar
  116. Mills KC, Parkman KM, Spruill SE: A PC-based software test for measuring alcohol and drug effects in human subjects. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1996, 20: 1582-1591. 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1996.tb01703.x.Google Scholar
  117. Shin MS, Park SY, Park SR, Seol SH, Kwon JS: Clinical and empirical applications of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test. Nat Protoc. 2006, 1: 892-899. 10.1038/nprot.2006.115.Google Scholar
  118. Rey A: L’examen psychologique dans les cas d’encephalopathie traumatique [The psychological examination in cases of traumatic encephalopathy]. Arch Psychol. 1941, 28: 286-340.Google Scholar
  119. Gronwall DM: Paced auditory serial-addition task: a measure of recovery from concussion. Percept Mot Skills. 1977, 44: 367-373. 10.2466/pms.1977.44.2.367.Google Scholar
  120. Benton AL, Hamsher KDS: Multilingual Aphasia Examination. 1976, Iowa City: AJA Associates, 2Google Scholar
  121. Letz R: NES2 User's Manual (version 4.4). 1991, Winchester: Neurobehavioral Systems, IncGoogle Scholar
  122. Anger WK, Rohlman DS, Sizemore OJ, Kovera CA, Gibertini M, Ger J: Human behavioral assessment in neurotoxicology: producing appropriate test performance with written and shaping instructions. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1996, 18: 371-379. 10.1016/0892-0362(96)00037-2.Google Scholar
  123. Smith A: SDMT: A neuropsychological test for economic screening. Hear Disord. 1968, 3: 83-91.Google Scholar
  124. Posner MI: Chronometric Explorations of Mind. 1978, Hillside: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  125. Binder LM, Willis SC: Assessment of motivation after financially compensable minor head trauma. Psychol Assess. 1991, 3: 175-181.Google Scholar
  126. Klove H: Clinical neuropsychology. Med Clin North Am. 1963, 47: 1647-1658.Google Scholar
  127. Tiffin J: Purdue Pegboard Examiner's Manual. 1968, Rosemont: London HouseGoogle Scholar
  128. Halstead WC: Brain and Intelligence. 1947, Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  129. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Gilson BS, Morris JR: The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv. 1976, 6: 393-415. 10.2190/RHE0-GGH4-410W-LA17.Google Scholar
  130. Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Vesselago M: The sickness impact profile: development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health. 1975, 65: 1304-1310. 10.2105/AJPH.65.12.1304.Google Scholar
  131. Barsky AJ, Wyshak G, Klerman GL: The somatosensory amplification scale and its relationship to hypochondriasis. J Psychiatr Res. 1990, 24: 323-334. 10.1016/0022-3956(90)90004-A.Google Scholar
  132. Pilowsky I, Spence N: Manual for the Illness Behavior Questionnaire. 1994, South Australia: Department of Psychiatry, University of Adelaide, 3Google Scholar
  133. Frisch MB: Manual and Treatment Guide for the Quality of Life Inventory. 1994, Minneapolis: National Computer SystemsGoogle Scholar
  134. Wolfe J, Proctor SP, Erickson DJ, Hu H: Risk factors for multisymptom illness in US Army veterans of the Gulf War. J Occup Environ Med. 2002, 44: 271-281. 10.1097/00043764-200203000-00015.Google Scholar
  135. Follow-up of Psychological and Neurocognitive Gulf War Outcome: Relation to Stress.http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:crtS-W6PyecJ:http://fhp.osd.mil/deploymed/projectDetail.jsp%3FprojectId%3D527%26region%3D0%26researchTopic%3D2%26majorDeployment%3D0%26researchSubTopic%3D10%2Bdeploymed+project+detail+527&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3..5516.5704.0.6704.2.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0..1c.1.Asten6c5jYk&hl=en&nfpr=1&spell=&ct=clnk,
  136. Department of Veterans Affairs: National Health Survey of Persian Gulf War Era Veterans Questionnaire. 1995, Washington: Department of Veterans AffairsGoogle Scholar
  137. Blanchard M, Eisen SA, Alpern R, Karlinsky JB, Toomey R, Reda DJ, Murphy FM, Jackson L, Kang H: Chronic multisymptom illness complex in Gulf War I veterans 10 years later. Am J Epidemiol. 2006, 163: 66-75.Google Scholar
  138. Kroenke K, Koslowe P, Roy M: Symptoms in 18,495 Persian Gulf War veterans: latency of onset and lack of association with self-reported exposures. J Occup Environ Med. 1998, 40: 520-528. 10.1097/00043764-199806000-00004.Google Scholar
  139. Cowan DN, Lange JL, Heller J, Kirkpatrick J, DeBakey S: A case–control study of asthma among U.S. Army Gulf War veterans and modeled exposure to oil well fire smoke. Mil Med. 2002, 167: 777-782.Google Scholar
  140. Engel CC, Ursano R, Magruder C, Tartaglione R, Jing Z, Labbate LA, Debakey S: Psychological conditions diagnosed among veterans seeking Department of Defense care for Gulf War-related health concerns. J Occup Environ Med. 1999, 41: 384-392. 10.1097/00043764-199905000-00006.Google Scholar
  141. Ford JD, Campbell KA, Storzbach D, Binder LM, Anger WK, Rohlman DS: Posttraumatic stress symptomatology is associated with unexplained illness attributed to Persian Gulf War military service. Psychosom Med. 2001, 63: 842-849.Google Scholar
  142. Nisenbaum R, Barrett DH, Reyes M, Reeves WC: Deployment stressors and a chronic multisymptom illness among Gulf War veterans. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2000, 188: 259-266. 10.1097/00005053-200005000-00002.Google Scholar
  143. Smith TC, Jacobson IG, Smith B, Hooper TI, Ryan MA, Team FT: The occupational role of women in military service: validation of occupation and prevalence of exposures in the Millennium Cohort Study. Int J Environ Health Res. 2007, 17: 271-284. 10.1080/09603120701372243.Google Scholar
  144. Smith B, Smith TC, Gray GC, Ryan MA: When epidemiology meets the Internet: web-based surveys in the Millennium Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007, 166: 1345-1354. 10.1093/aje/kwm212.Google Scholar
  145. Jacobson IG, Smith TC, Smith B, Keel PK, Amoroso PJ, Wells TS, Bathalon GP, Boyko EJ, Ryan MA: Disordered eating and weight changes after deployment: longitudinal assessment of a large US military cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2009, 169: 415-427.Google Scholar
  146. Smith B, Chu LK, Smith TC, Amoroso PJ, Boyko EJ, Hooper TI, Gackstetter GD, Ryan MA: Challenges of self-reported medical conditions and electronic medical records among members of a large military cohort. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008, 8: 37-10.1186/1471-2288-8-37.Google Scholar
  147. Chyba M, Washington L: Questionnaires from the National Health Interview Survey, 1985–1989. Vital Health Stat. 1993, 1 (31):
  148. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire. 1995, Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionGoogle Scholar
  149. The University of Iowa: Female and family health questionnaire: the agricultural health study. 1993, Iowa City: University of IowaGoogle Scholar
  150. Agricultural Health Study.http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/questionnaires.html,
  151. Jacobson IG, White MR, Smith TC, Smith B, Wells TS, Gackstetter GD, Boyko EJ: Self-reported health symptoms and conditions among complementary and alternative medicine users in a large military cohort. Ann Epidemiol. 2009, 19: 613-622. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.05.001.Google Scholar
  152. Cameron L, Leventhal EA, Leventhal H: Seeking medical care in response to symptoms and life stress. Psychosom Med. 1995, 57: 37-47.Google Scholar
  153. Department of Veterans Affairs: Longitudinal Health Study of Persian Gulf War Era Veterans Questionnaire. 2002, Washington: Department of Veterans AffairsGoogle Scholar
  154. Stouffer S, Guttman L, Suchman E: Studies in Social Psychology in World War II: Measurement and Prediction. 1950, Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  155. Bradburn N: The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. 1969, Chicago: AldineGoogle Scholar
  156. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB: The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med. 2002, 64: 258-266.Google Scholar
  157. Lange JL, Schwartz DA, Doebbeling BN, Heller JM, Thorne PS: Exposures to the Kuwait oil fires and their association with asthma and bronchitis among Gulf War veterans. Environ Health Perspect. 2002, 110: 1141-1146. 10.1289/ehp.021101141.Google Scholar
  158. Ferris BJ: Epidemiology standardization project. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1978, 118: 55-88.Google Scholar
  159. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992, 30: 473-483. 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.Google Scholar
  160. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey J: How to Score Version 2 of the SF-36 Health Survey. 2000, Lincoln: Quality Metric, IncGoogle Scholar
  161. Ware JE, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandeck B: SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. 1993, Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical CenterGoogle Scholar
  162. Ware JE: SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000, 25: 3130-3139. 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008.Google Scholar
  163. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD, Davies AR: A Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). 1988, New York: RAND CorporationGoogle Scholar
  164. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M: Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002, 40: 113-128. 10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006.Google Scholar
  165. Forman-Hoffman VL, Carney CP, Sampson TR, Peloso PM, Woolson RF, Black DW, Doebbeling BN: Mental health comorbidity patterns and impact on quality of life among veterans serving during the first Gulf War. Qual Life Res. 2005, 14: 2303-2314. 10.1007/s11136-005-6540-2.Google Scholar
  166. Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, Wallace EP: Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res. 1993, 37: 147-153. 10.1016/0022-3999(93)90081-P.Google Scholar
  167. Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, Steinberg AD: The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol. 1989, 46: 1121-1123. 10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022.Google Scholar
  168. Smets EM, Garssen B, Bonke B, De Haes JC: The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI): psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res. 1995, 39: 315-325. 10.1016/0022-3999(94)00125-O.Google Scholar
  169. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, Sharpe MC, Dobbins JG, Komaroff A, International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group: The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. Ann Intern Med. 1994, 121: 953-959.Google Scholar
  170. Wolfe F, Ross K, Anderson J, Russell IJ, Hebert L: The prevalence and characteristics of fibromyalgia in the general population. Arthritis Rheum. 1995, 38: 19-28. 10.1002/art.1780380104.Google Scholar
  171. Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, Bennett RM, Bombardier C, Goldenberg DL, Tugwell P, Campbell SM, Abeles M, Clark P: The American College of Rheumatology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia: Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee. Arthritis Rheum. 1990, 33: 160-172. 10.1002/art.1780330203.Google Scholar
  172. Szarek M, Bell I, Schwartz G: Validation of a brief screening measure of environmental chemical sensitivity: the Chemical Odor Intolerance Index. J Environ Psychol. 1997, 17: 345-351. 10.1006/jevp.1997.0071.Google Scholar
  173. Kreutzer R, Neutra R, Lashuay N: Prevalence of people reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1999, 150: 1-12. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009908.Google Scholar
  174. Black DW, Doebbeling BN, Voelker MD, Clarke WR, Woolson RF, Barrett DH, Schwartz DA: Multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome: symptom prevalence and risk factors in a military population. Arch Intern Med. 2000, 160: 1169-1176. 10.1001/archinte.160.8.1169.Google Scholar
  175. Kang H, Mahan CM, Murphy FM, Lee K, Simmens SJ, Young H, Levin P: Evidence of a deployment-related Gulf War syndrome by factor analysis. Arch Environ Health. 2002, 57: 61-68. 10.1080/00039890209602918.Google Scholar
  176. Spencer PS, McCauley LA, Joos SK, Lasarev MR, Schuell T, Bourdette D, Barkhuizen A, Johnston W, Storzbach D, Wynn M: U.S. Gulf War veterans: service periods in theater, differential exposures, and persistent unexplained illness. Toxicol Lett. 1998, 102–103: 515-521.Google Scholar
  177. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DOD continue to resist strong evidence linking toxic causes to chronic health effects. HR 105–388. 1997, Washington: U.S. Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  178. Blake DD, Weathers FW, Nagy L, Kaloupek DG, Klauminzer G, Charney DS: Clinician Administered PTSD Scale. 1990, West Haven: National Center for PTSD, Behavioral Sciences DivisionGoogle Scholar
  179. Blake DD, Weathers FW, Nagy LM, Kaloupek DG, Gusman FD, Charney DS, Keane TM: The development of a Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale. J Trauma Stress. 1995, 8: 75-90. 10.1002/jts.2490080106.Google Scholar
  180. Weathers FW, Huska JA, Keane TM: The PTSD Checklist- Military Version (PCL-M). 1991, Boston: National Center for PTSDGoogle Scholar
  181. Weathers FW, Ford J: Psychometric Review of PTSD Checklist (PCL-C, PCL-S, PCL-M, PCL-PR). Measurement of Stress, Trauma, and Adaptation. Edited by: Stamm BH. 1996, Lutherville: Sidran PressGoogle Scholar
  182. Wolfe J, Erickson DJ, Sharkansky EJ, King DW, King LA: Course and predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder among Gulf War veterans: a prospective analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999, 67: 520-528.Google Scholar
  183. Keane TM, Caddell JM, Taylor KL: Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: three studies in reliability and validity. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988, 56: 85-90.Google Scholar
  184. Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Gibbon M, First M: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Patient Edition (SCID-P). 1989, New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric InstituteGoogle Scholar
  185. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W: Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979, 41: 209-218.Google Scholar
  186. Phillips CJ, Matyas GR, Hansen CJ, Alving CR, Smith TC, Ryan MA: Antibodies to squalene in US Navy Persian Gulf War veterans with chronic multisymptom illness. Vaccine. 2009, 27: 3921-3926. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.03.091.Google Scholar
  187. Chyba MM, Washington LR: Questionnaires from the National Health Interview Survey, 1985–89. Vital Health Stat. 1993, 1: 1-412.Google Scholar
  188. Helmer DA, Flanagan ME, Woolson RF, Doebbeling BN: Health services use among Gulf War veterans and Gulf War era nondeployed veterans: a large population-based survey. Am J Public Health. 2007, 97: 2145-2148. 10.2105/AJPH.2006.104299.Google Scholar
  189. Edwards W, Berlin M: In National Medical Expenditure Survey, Methods 2. Questionnaires and Data Collection Methods for the Household Survey and the Survey of American Indians and Alaska Natives. PHS 89–3450. 1989, Rockville: Public Health ServiceGoogle Scholar
  190. Black DW, Doebbeling BN, Voelker MD, Clarke WR, Woolson RF, Barrett DH, Schwartz DA: Quality of life and health-services utilization in a population-based sample of military personnel reporting multiple chemical sensitivities. J Occup Environ Med. 1999, 41: 928-933. 10.1097/00043764-199910000-00014.Google Scholar
  191. Gallops M, Laufer R, Yager T: Revised Combat Scale. Legacies of Vietnam: Comparative Adjustments of Veterans and Their Peers. Edited by: Laufer R, Yager T. 1981, Washington: US Government Printing Office, 3Google Scholar
  192. Rosenheck R, Becnel H, Blank A, Farley F, Fontana A, Friedman MJ, Fulton J, Gelsomino J, Grishman M, Gusman FD: Returning Persian Gulf Troops: First-year Findings. Report of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the United States Congress on the Psychological Effects of the Persian Gulf War. 1992, West Haven: Evaluation Division of the National Center for PTSD, Department of Veterans AffairsGoogle Scholar
  193. Keane TM, Fairbank J, Taylor KL, Mora C: Brief reports: clinical evaluation of a measure to assess combat exposure. Psychol Assessment. 1989, 1: 53-55.Google Scholar
  194. Wolfe J: Applying principles of critical incident debriefing to the therapeutic management of acute combat stress. 1990, Boston: National Center for PTSDGoogle Scholar
  195. Coughlin SS, Kang HK, Mahan CM: Alcohol use and selected health conditions of 1991 Gulf War veterans: survey results, 2003–2005. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011, 8: A52-Google Scholar
  196. Jacobson IG, Ryan MA, Hooper TI, Smith TC, Amoroso PJ, Boyko EJ, Gackstetter GD, Wells TS, Bell NS: Alcohol use and alcohol-related problems before and after military combat deployment. JAMA. 2008, 300: 663-675. 10.1001/jama.300.6.663.Google Scholar
  197. Ewing JA: Detecting alcoholism: the CAGE questionnaire. JAMA. 1984, 252: 1905-1907. 10.1001/jama.1984.03350140051025.Google Scholar
  198. Smith B, Ryan MA, Wingard DL, Patterson TL, Slymen DJ, Macera CA: Cigarette smoking and military deployment: a prospective evaluation. Am J Prev Med. 2008, 35: 539-546. 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.07.009.Google Scholar
  199. Mahan CM, Kang H, Dalager N, Heller JM: Anthrax vaccination and self-reported symptoms, functional status, and medical conditions in the National Health Survey of Gulf War Era Veterans and Their Families. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 14: 81-88.Google Scholar
  200. Black DW, Carney CP, Forman-Hoffman VL, Letuchy E, Peloso P, Woolson RF, Doebbeling BN: Depression in veterans of the first Gulf War and comparable military controls. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2004, 16: 53-61. 10.1080/10401230490452645.Google Scholar
  201. van der Steen JT, Kruse RL, Szafara KL, Mehr DR, van der Wal G, Ribbe MW, D'Agostino RB: Benefits and pitfalls of pooling datasets from comparable observational studies: combining US and Dutch nursing home studies. Palliat Med. 2008, 22: 750-759. 10.1177/0269216308094102.Google Scholar
  202. Blettner M, Sauerbrei W, Schlehofer B, Scheuchenpflug T, Friedenreich C: Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 1999, 28: 1-9. 10.1093/ije/28.1.1.Google Scholar
  203. Sutton AJ, Higgins JPT: Recent developments in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2008, 27: 625-650. 10.1002/sim.2934.Google Scholar

Copyright

© McNeil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement