Performance of current tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury in sport: a systematic review.

IF 3.9 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-08 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-001904
Phoebe Haste, Leonardo de Almeida E Bueno, Antoine Jérusalem, Jeroen Bergmann
{"title":"Performance of current tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury in sport: a systematic review.","authors":"Phoebe Haste, Leonardo de Almeida E Bueno, Antoine Jérusalem, Jeroen Bergmann","doi":"10.1136/bmjsem-2024-001904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The monitoring and diagnosis of sports-related mild traumatic brain injury (SR-mTBI) remains a challenge. This systematic review summarises the current monitoring tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of SR-mTBI and their performance.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies assessment.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Embase via Ovid, IEEEXplore, Medline via Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science were searched up to June 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Peer-reviewed English-language journal articles which measured athletes using the index test within a day of injury and provided a performance measure for the method used. Studies of all designs were accepted, and no reference methods were required.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2534 unique records were retrieved, with 52 reports included in the review. Participants were 76% male, when reported, and the mean injury-to-measurement time was reported in 10% of reports. 46 different methods were investigated. 38 different reference methods were used, highlighting the lack of gold standard within the field. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were the most frequent outcome metrics provided. The most frequent index test was the King-Devick (KD) test. However, there were large variations in accuracy metrics between reports for the KD test, for instance, the range of AUC: 0.51-0.92.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combinations of existing methods and the KD test were most accurate in assessing SR-mTBI, despite the inconsistent accuracy values related to the KD test. The absence of a gold-standard measurement hampers our ability to diagnose or monitor SR-mTBI. Further exploration of the mechanisms and time-dependent pathophysiology of SR-mTBI could result in more targeted diagnostic and monitoring techniques. The Podium Institute for Sports Medicine and Technology funded this work.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42022376560.</p>","PeriodicalId":47417,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"e001904"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11808887/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2024-001904","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The monitoring and diagnosis of sports-related mild traumatic brain injury (SR-mTBI) remains a challenge. This systematic review summarises the current monitoring tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of SR-mTBI and their performance.

Design: Systematic review, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies assessment.

Data sources: Embase via Ovid, IEEEXplore, Medline via Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science were searched up to June 2024.

Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed English-language journal articles which measured athletes using the index test within a day of injury and provided a performance measure for the method used. Studies of all designs were accepted, and no reference methods were required.

Results: 2534 unique records were retrieved, with 52 reports included in the review. Participants were 76% male, when reported, and the mean injury-to-measurement time was reported in 10% of reports. 46 different methods were investigated. 38 different reference methods were used, highlighting the lack of gold standard within the field. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were the most frequent outcome metrics provided. The most frequent index test was the King-Devick (KD) test. However, there were large variations in accuracy metrics between reports for the KD test, for instance, the range of AUC: 0.51-0.92.

Conclusion: Combinations of existing methods and the KD test were most accurate in assessing SR-mTBI, despite the inconsistent accuracy values related to the KD test. The absence of a gold-standard measurement hampers our ability to diagnose or monitor SR-mTBI. Further exploration of the mechanisms and time-dependent pathophysiology of SR-mTBI could result in more targeted diagnostic and monitoring techniques. The Podium Institute for Sports Medicine and Technology funded this work.

Prospero registration number: CRD42022376560.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
106
审稿时长
20 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