Clinical Utility of Ocular Assessments in Sport-Related Concussion: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.6 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Ayrton Walshe, Ed Daly, Lisa Ryan
{"title":"Clinical Utility of Ocular Assessments in Sport-Related Concussion: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Ayrton Walshe, Ed Daly, Lisa Ryan","doi":"10.3390/jfmk9030157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/objectives:</b> Ocular tools and technologies may be used in the diagnosis of sport-related concussions (SRCs), but their clinical utility can vary. The following study aimed to review the literature pertaining to the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of such assessments. <b>Methods:</b> The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews was adhered to. Reference standard reliability (RSR ≥ 0.75) and diagnostic accuracy (RSDA ≥ 0.80) were implemented to aid interpretation. <b>Results:</b> In total, 5223 articles were screened using the PCC acronym (Population, Concept, Context) with 74 included in the final analysis. Assessments included the King-Devick (KD) (n = 34), vestibular-ocular motor screening (VOMs) and/or near point of convergence (NPC) (n = 25), and various alternative tools and technologies (n = 20). The KD met RSR, but RSDA beyond amateur sport was limited. NPC met RSR but did not have RSDA to identify SRCs. The VOMs had conflicting RSR for total score and did not meet RSR in its individual tests. The VOMs total score did perform well in RSDA for SRCs. No alternative tool or technology met both RSR and RSDA. <b>Conclusion:</b> Ocular tools are useful, rapid screening tools but should remain within a multi-modal assessment for SRCs at this time.</p>","PeriodicalId":16052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417888/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk9030157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: Ocular tools and technologies may be used in the diagnosis of sport-related concussions (SRCs), but their clinical utility can vary. The following study aimed to review the literature pertaining to the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of such assessments. Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews was adhered to. Reference standard reliability (RSR ≥ 0.75) and diagnostic accuracy (RSDA ≥ 0.80) were implemented to aid interpretation. Results: In total, 5223 articles were screened using the PCC acronym (Population, Concept, Context) with 74 included in the final analysis. Assessments included the King-Devick (KD) (n = 34), vestibular-ocular motor screening (VOMs) and/or near point of convergence (NPC) (n = 25), and various alternative tools and technologies (n = 20). The KD met RSR, but RSDA beyond amateur sport was limited. NPC met RSR but did not have RSDA to identify SRCs. The VOMs had conflicting RSR for total score and did not meet RSR in its individual tests. The VOMs total score did perform well in RSDA for SRCs. No alternative tool or technology met both RSR and RSDA. Conclusion: Ocular tools are useful, rapid screening tools but should remain within a multi-modal assessment for SRCs at this time.

运动相关脑震荡中眼部评估的临床实用性:范围审查。
背景/目的:眼部工具和技术可用于诊断运动相关脑震荡(SRC),但其临床效用可能各不相同。以下研究旨在回顾与此类评估的可靠性和诊断准确性有关的文献。方法:采用系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)扩展进行范围界定综述。采用参考标准可靠性(RSR ≥ 0.75)和诊断准确性(RSDA ≥ 0.80)来帮助解释。结果:共使用 PCC 首字母缩写词(人群、概念、背景)筛选了 5223 篇文章,其中 74 篇纳入最终分析。评估方法包括 King-Devick (KD) (n = 34)、前庭-眼球运动筛查 (VOMs) 和/或近辐辏点 (NPC) (n = 25),以及各种替代工具和技术 (n = 20)。KD 符合 RSR,但业余运动以外的 RSDA 有限。NPC 符合 RSR,但没有 RSDA 来确定 SRC。VOMs 的总分 RSR 互不一致,单项测试也不符合 RSR。VOMs 的总分在 SRC 的 RSDA 中表现良好。没有一种替代工具或技术同时满足 RSR 和 RSDA 的要求。结论眼科工具是有用的快速筛查工具,但目前仍应在 SRC 的多模式评估中使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信