Diagnostic predictive values for sport-related concussions: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

Author:

Dharnipragada Rajiv1,Naik Anant2,Denduluri Lalitha Saahiti3,Bederson Maria2,Akkad Adam2,Cramer Samuel W.1,Koester Stefan W.4,Catapano Joshua S.5,Zuckerman Scott L.4,Snyder Laura5,Arnold Paul M.6

Affiliation:

1. University of Minnesota Medical School, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota;

2. Carle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, Illinois;

3. University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota;

4. Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and

5. Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona

6. Department of Neurosurgery, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Illinois;

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Sport-related concussions (SRCs) can cause significant neurological symptoms, and approximately 10%–15% of athletes with SRC experience a prolonged recovery. Given the lack of visible injury on brain imaging and their varied presentations, concussions can be difficult to diagnose. A variety of tests and examination methods have been used to elicit a concussion diagnosis; however, the sensitivity and specificity of these tests are variable. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of standardized tests and visible signs like balance and vision changes in the diagnosis of SRC. METHODS A PRISMA-adherent systematic review of concussion diagnostic examinations was performed using the PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 1, 2022. Search terms included "concussion," "traumatic brain injury," "diagnosis," "sensitivity," and "specificity." Each method of examination was categorized into larger group-based symptomatologic presentations or standardized tools. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of concussion. Pooled specificity and sensitivity for each method were calculated using a meta-analysis of proportion and were hierarchically ranked using P-scores calculated from a diagnostic frequentist network meta-analysis. RESULTS Thirty full-length articles were identified for inclusion, 13 of which evaluated grouped symptomology examinations (balance and overall clinical presentation) and 17 of which evaluated established formalized tools (ImPACT, King-Devick [K-D] Test, Sport Concussion Assessment Tool [SCAT]). The pooled specificity of the examination methods differed minimally (0.8–0.85), whereas the sensitivity varied to a larger degree (0.5–0.88). In a random effects model, the SCAT had the greatest diagnostic yield (diagnostic OR 31.65, 95% CI 11.06–90.57). Additionally, P-score hierarchical ranking revealed SCAT as having the greatest diagnostic utility (p = 0.9733), followed sequentially by ImPACT, clinical presentation, K-D, and balance. CONCLUSIONS In deciphering which concussion symptom-focused examinations and standardized tools are most accurate in making a concussion diagnosis, the authors found that the SCAT examination has the greatest diagnostic yield, followed by ImPACT, clinical presentation, and K-D, which have comparable value for diagnosis. Given the indirect nature of this analysis, however, further comparative studies are needed to validate the findings.

Publisher

Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)

Subject

Genetics,Animal Science and Zoology

Reference71 articles.

1. Concussions among United States high school and collegiate athletes;Gessel LM,2007

2. Mortality Data on CDC WONDER. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;National Center for Health Statistics

3. The prevalence of undiagnosed concussions in athletes;Meehan WP III,2013

4. Epidemiology of concussion in collegiate and high school football players;Guskiewicz KM,2000

5. Association between recurrent concussion and late-life cognitive impairment in retired professional football players;Guskiewicz KM,2005

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