Dr. John  Whyte  Md image

Dr. John Whyte Md

101 E Olney Ave Suite 400
Philadelphia PA 19120
215 567-7000
Medical School: Other - Unknown
Accepts Medicare: No
Participates In eRX: No
Participates In PQRS: No
Participates In EHR: No
License #: MD044166E
NPI: 1013954890
Taxonomy Codes:

Request Appointment Information

Awards & Recognitions

About Us

Practice Philosophy


Medical Malpractice Cases

None Found

Medical Board Sanctions

None Found


None Found


Design of brain injury rehabilitation treatment research. - Handbook of clinical neurology
Rehabilitation is a key service component in the context of significant brain injury, yet many of the treatments and services employed in rehabilitation are not based on rigorous evidence. Treatment research in rehabilitation, like in other fields of healthcare, relies on a developmental sequence of studies that address different questions, including safety, proof of principle, definitive efficacy, and real-world effectiveness. Each of these steps faces challenges specific to the rehabilitation domain, where many treatments are nonpharmacologic, and outcomes of interest are highly varied and complex. This chapter frames the research questions addressed by different phases of treatment research, identifies some of the particular challenges in answering these questions, and takes a hypothetical treatment through the sequence to illustrate the process.© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Disrupted structural connectome is associated with both psychometric and real-world neuropsychological impairment in diffuse traumatic brain injury. - Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is likely to disrupt structural network properties due to diffuse white matter pathology. The present study aimed to detect alterations in structural network topology in TBI and relate them to cognitive and real-world behavioral impairment. Twenty-two people with moderate to severe TBI with mostly diffuse pathology and 18 demographically matched healthy controls were included in the final analysis. Graph theoretical network analysis was applied to diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data to characterize structural connectivity in both groups. Neuropsychological functions were assessed by a battery of psychometric tests and the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe). Local connection-wise analysis demonstrated reduced structural connectivity in TBI arising from subcortical areas including thalamus, caudate, and hippocampus. Global network metrics revealed that shortest path length in participants with TBI was longer compared to controls, and that this reduced network efficiency was associated with worse performance in executive function and verbal learning. The shortest path length measure was also correlated with family-reported FrSBe scores. These findings support the notion that the diffuse form of neuropathology caused by TBI results in alterations in structural connectivity that contribute to cognitive and real-world behavioral impairment.
Pain issues in disorders of consciousness. - Brain injury
The assessment of pain and nociception in non-communicative patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) is a real challenge for clinicians. It is, therefore, important to develop sensitive standardized tools usable at the bedside.This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge about pain processing and assessment in patients with DOC.A search was performed on PubMed using MeSH terms including vegetative state, unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, minimally conscious state, consciousness disorders, pain, nociception, neuroimaging and pain assessment.Neuroimaging studies investigating pain processing in patients with DOC and their implication for clinicians are reviewed. Current works on the development of standardized and sensitive tools for assessing nociception are described.The suggested pain perception capacity highlighted by neuroimaging studies in patients in a MCS and in some patients in a VS/UWS supports the idea that these patients need analgesic treatment and monitoring. The first tool which has been developed to assess nociception and pain in patients with DOC is the NCS. Its revised version represents a rapid, standardized and sensitive scale which can be easily implemented in a clinical setting. Complementary pain assessments are also under validation in order to offer more options to clinicians.
Functional recovery after severe traumatic brain injury: an individual growth curve approach. - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
To examine person, injury, and treatment characteristics associated with recovery trajectories of people with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) during inpatient rehabilitation.Observational prospective longitudinal study.TBI rehabilitation units.Adults (N=206) with severe nonpenetrating TBI admitted directly to inpatient rehabilitation from acute care. Participants were excluded for prior disability and intentional etiology of injury.Naturally occurring treatments delivered within comprehensive multidisciplinary teams were recorded daily in 15-minute units provided to patients and family members, separately.Motor and cognitive FIM were measured on admission, discharge, and every 2 weeks in between and were analyzed with individual growth curve methodology.Inpatient recovery was best modeled with linear, cubic, and quadratic components: relatively steep recovery was followed by deceleration of improvement, which attenuated prior to discharge. Slower recovery was associated with older age, longer coma, and interruptions to rehabilitation. Patients admitted at lower functional levels received more treatment, and more treatment was associated with slower recovery, presumably because treatment was allocated according to need. Therefore, effects of treatment on outcome could not be disentangled from effects of case mix factors.FIM gain during inpatient recovery from severe TBI is not a linear process. In observational studies, the specific effects of treatment on rehabilitation outcomes are difficult to separate from case mix factors that are associated with both outcome and allocation of treatment.Copyright © 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Components of traumatic brain injury severity indices. - Journal of neurotrauma
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there are underlying dimensions common among traditional traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity indices and, if so, the extent to which they are interchangeable when predicting short-term outcomes. This study had an observational design, and took place in United States trauma centers reporting to the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). The sample consisted of 77,470 unweighted adult cases reported to the NTDB from 2007 to 2010, with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) TBI codes. There were no interventions. Severity indices used were the Emergency Department Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) Total score and each of the subscales for eye opening (four levels), verbal response (five levels), and motor response (six levels); the worst Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) severity score for the head (six levels); and the worst Barell index type (three categories). Prediction models were computed for acute care length of stay (days), intensive care unit length of stay (days), hospital discharge status (alive or dead), and, if alive, discharge disposition (home versus institutional). Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) indicated a two dimensional relationship among items of severity indexes. The primary dimension reflected overall injury severity. The second dimension seemed to capture volitional behavior without the capability for cogent responding. Together, they defined two vectors around which most of the items clustered. A scale that took advantage of the order of items along these vectors proved to be the most consistent index for predicting short-term health outcomes. MCA provided useful insight into the relationships among components of traditional TBI severity indices. The two vector pattern may reflect the impact of injury on different cortical and subcortical networks. Results are discussed in terms of score substitution and the ability to impute missing values.
Zolpidem and restoration of consciousness. - American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists
Zolpidem has been reported to cause temporary recovery of consciousness in vegetative and minimally conscious patients, but how often and why this occurs are unknown. The authors aimed to determine the frequency of this phenomenon and whether it can be predicted from demographic and clinical variables.This is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study performed by caregivers and replicated by trained professionals, for naive participants. Four previously identified responders were also studied to further characterize the clinical drug response.Eighty-four participants with traumatic and nontraumatic disorders of consciousness of at least 4 mos' duration were studied. Four "definite responders" were identified, but no demographic or clinical features were predictive of the response. Indicators of a drug response included increased movement, social interaction, command following, attempts at communication, and functional object use; typically lasted 1-2 hrs; and sometimes ended with increased somnolence. Adverse events were more common on zolpidem than placebo, but most were rated as mild.Approximately 5% (4.8%) of the participants responded to zolpidem, but the responders could not be distinguished in advance from the nonresponders. Future research is needed to understand the mechanism of zolpidem in enhancing consciousness and its potential role in treatment and research.
Treatment taxonomy for rehabilitation: past, present, and prospects. - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
The idea of constructing a taxonomy of rehabilitation interventions has been around for quite some time, but other than small and mostly ad hoc efforts, not much progress has been made, in spite of articulate pleas by some well-respected clinician scholars. In this article, treatment taxonomies used in health care, and in rehabilitation specifically, are selectively reviewed, with a focus on the need to base a rehabilitation treatment taxonomy (RTT) on the "active ingredients" of treatments and their link to patient/client deficits/problems that are targeted in therapy. This is followed by a description of what we see as a fruitful approach to the development of an RTT that crosses disciplines, settings, and patient diagnoses, and a discussion of the potential uses in and benefits of a well-developed RTT for clinical service, research, education, and service administration.Copyright © 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Rehabilitation treatment taxonomy: implications and continuations. - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
In relation to the conceptual framework for a rehabilitation treatment taxonomy (RTT), which has been proposed in other articles in this supplement, this article discusses a number of issues relevant to its further development, including creating distinctions within the major target classes; the nature and quantity of allowable targets of treatment; and bracketing as a way of specifying (1) the skill or knowledge taught; (2) the nature of compensation afforded by changes in the environment, assistive technology, and orthotics/prosthetics; and (3) the ingredients in homework a clinician assigns. Clarification is provided regarding the role of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, focusing a taxonomy on ingredients versus other observable aspects of treatment, and regarding our lack of knowledge and its impact on taxonomy development. Finally, this article discusses the immediate implications of the work to date and presents the need for rehabilitation stakeholders of all disciplines to be involved in further RTT development.Copyright © 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Toward a theory-driven classification of rehabilitation treatments. - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is in need of an organized system or taxonomy for classifying treatments to aid in research, practice, training, and interdisciplinary communication. In this article, we describe a work-in-progress effort to create a rehabilitation treatment taxonomy (RTT) for classifying rehabilitation interventions by the underlying treatment theories that explain their effects. In the RTT, treatments are grouped together according to their targets, or measurable aspects of functioning they are intended to change; ingredients, or measurable clinician decisions and behaviors responsible for effecting changes; and the hypothesized mechanisms of action by which ingredients are transformed into changes in the target. Four treatment groupings are proposed: structural tissue properties, organ functions, skilled performances, and cognitive/affective representations, which are similar in the types of targets addressed, ingredients used, and mechanisms of action that account for change. The typical ingredients and examples of clinical treatments associated with each of these groupings are explored, and the challenges of further subdivision are discussed. Although a Linnaean hierarchical tree structure was envisioned at the outset of work on the RTT, further development may necessitate a model with less rigid boundaries between classification groups, and/or a matrix-like structure for organizing active ingredients along selected continua, to allow for both qualitative and quantitative variations of importance to treatment effects.Copyright © 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Development of a theory-driven rehabilitation treatment taxonomy: conceptual issues. - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
Many rehabilitation treatment interventions, unlike pharmacologic treatments, are not operationally defined, and the labels given to such treatments do not specify the active ingredients that produce the intended treatment effects. This, in turn, limits the ability to study and disseminate treatments, to communicate about them clearly, or to train new clinicians to administer them appropriately. We sought to begin the development of a system of classification of rehabilitation treatments and services that is based on their active ingredients. To do this, we reviewed a range of published descriptions of rehabilitation treatments and treatments that were familiar to the authors from their clinical and research experience. These treatment examples were used to develop preliminary rules for defining discrete treatments, identifying the area of function they directly treat, and identifying their active ingredients. These preliminary rules were then tested against additional treatment examples, and problems in their application were used to revise the rules in an iterative fashion. The following concepts, which emerged from this process, are defined and discussed in relation with the development of a rehabilitation treatment taxonomy: rehabilitation treatment taxonomy; treatment and enablement theory; recipient (of treatment); essential, active, and inactive ingredients; mechanism of action; targets and aims of treatment; session; progression; dosing parameters; and social and physical environment. It is hoped that articulation of the conceptual issues encountered during this project will be useful to others attempting to promote theory-based discussion of rehabilitation effects and that multidisciplinary discussion and research will further refine these rules and definitions to advance rehabilitation treatment classification.Copyright © 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Map & Directions

101 E Olney Ave Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19120
View Directions In Google Maps

Nearby Doctors

101 E Olney Ave Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 567-7000
431 W Roosevelt Blvd
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 553-3444
616 W Olney Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 753-3797
5045 N 5Th St
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 246-6813
441 E Wyoming Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 574-4422
500 E Godfrey Ave Suite B
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 459-9100
101 E Olney Ave Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 567-7000
101 E Olney Ave Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 567-7000
101 E Olney Ave Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 567-7000
101 E Olney Ave Suite C5
Philadelphia, PA 19120
215 272-2004