Interpreting Clinical Reaction Time Change and Recovery After Concussion: A Baseline Versus Norm-Based Cutoff Score Comparison

Author:

Caccese Jaclyn B.1,Eckner James T.2,Franco-MacKendrick Lea2,Hazzard Joseph B.3,Ni Meng4,Broglio Steven P.5,McAllister Thomas W.6,McCrea Michael A.7,Pasquina Paul F.89,Buckley Thomas A.1011

Affiliation:

1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus

2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

3. Department of Exercise Science, loomsburg University, PA

4. The Institute for Concussion Research & Services, Bloomsburg University, PA

5. Michigan Concussion Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

6. Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis

7. Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

8. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD

9. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD

10. Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware, Newark

11. Biomechanics and Movement Science Interdisciplinary Program, University of Delaware, Newark

Abstract

Context Preseason testing can be time intensive and cost prohibitive. Therefore, using normative data for postconcussion interpretation in lieu of preseason testing is desirable. Objective To establish the recovery trajectory for clinical reaction time (RTclin) and assess the usefulness of changes from baseline (comparison of postconcussion scores with individual baseline scores) and norm-based cutoff scores (comparison of postconcussion scores with a normative mean) for identifying impairments postconcussion. Design Case-control study. Setting Multisite clinical setting. Patients or Other Participants An overlapping sample of 99 participants (age = 19.0 ± 1.1 years) evaluated within 6 hours postconcussion, 176 participants (age = 18.9 ± 1.1 years) evaluated at 24 to 48 hours postconcussion, and 214 participants (age = 18.9 ± 1.1 years) evaluated once they were cleared to begin a return-to-play progression were included. Participants with concussion were compared with 942 control participants (age = 19.0 ± 1.0 years) who did not sustain a concussion during the study period but completed preseason baseline testing at 2 points separated by 1 year (years 1 and 2). Main Outcome Measure(s) At each time point, follow-up RTclin (ie, postconcussion or year 2) was compared with the individual year 1 preseason baseline RTclin and normative baseline data (ie, sex and sport specific). Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated to compare the sensitivity and specificity of RTclin change from baseline and norm-based cutoff scores. Results Clinical reaction time performance declined within 6 hours (18 milliseconds, 9.2% slower than baseline). The decline persisted at 24 to 48 hours (15 milliseconds, 7.6% slower than baseline), but performance recovered by the time of return-to-play initiation. Within 6 hours, a change from baseline of 16 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (52%) and specificity (79%, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.702), whereas a norm-based cutoff score of 19 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (46%) and specificity (86%, AUC = 0.700). At 24 to 48 hours, a change from baseline of 2 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (64%) and specificity (61%, AUC = 0.666), whereas a norm-based cutoff score of 0 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (63%) and specificity (62%, AUC = 0.647). Conclusions Norm-based cutoff scores can be used for interpreting RTclin scores postconcussion in collegiate athletes when individual baseline data are not available, although low sensitivity and specificity limit the use of RTclin as a stand-alone test.

Publisher

Journal of Athletic Training/NATA

Subject

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,General Medicine

Cited by 11 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3