Review of Assessment Scales for Diagnosing and Monitoring Sports-related Concussion

Alexa M Dessy, Frank J Yuk, Akbar Y Maniya, Alex Gometz, Jonathan J Rasouli, Mark R Lovell, Tanvir F Choudhri, Alexa M Dessy, Frank J Yuk, Akbar Y Maniya, Alex Gometz, Jonathan J Rasouli, Mark R Lovell, Tanvir F Choudhri

Abstract

Sports-related concussion has emerged as a public health crisis due to increased diagnosis of the condition and increased participation in organized and recreational athletics worldwide. Under-recognition of concussions can lead to premature clearance for athletic participation, leaving athletes vulnerable to repeat injury and subsequent short- and long-term complications. There is overwhelming evidence that assessment and management of sports-related concussions should involve a multifaceted approach. A number of assessment criteria have been developed for this purpose. It is important to understand the available and emerging diagnostic testing modalities for sports-related concussions. The most commonly used tools for evaluating individuals with concussion are the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS), Standard Assessment of Concussion (SAC), Standard Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT3), and the most recognized computerized neurocognitive test, the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). The strengths and limitations of each of these tools, and the Concussion Resolution Index (CRI), CogSport, and King-Devick tests were evaluated. Based on the data, it appears that the most sensitive and specific of these is the ImPACT test. Additionally, the King-Devick test is an effective adjunct due to its ability to test eye movements and brainstem function.

Keywords: concussion; impact; sac; scat3; sports-related injury.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section.

References

    1. Nonfatal traumatic brain injuries from sports and recreation activities--United States, 2001-2005. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2007;56:733–737.
    1. Evaluation of the standardized assessment of concussion in a pediatric emergency department. Grubenhoff JA, Kirkwood M, Gao D, et al. Pediatrics. 2010;126:688–695.
    1. CDC grand rounds: reducing severe traumatic brain injury in the United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62:549–552.
    1. Sports-related concussion: A narrative review of the literature. Marshall CM. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2012;56:299–310.
    1. Second-impact syndrome. Cantu RC. . Clin Sports Med. 1998;17:37–44.
    1. Concussion: current concepts in diagnosis and management. Borich MR, Cheung KL, Jones P, et al. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2013;37:133–139.
    1. Advances in sport concussion assessment: from behavioral to brain imaging measures. Ellemberg D, Henry LC, Macciocchi SN, et al. J Neurotrauma. 2009;26:2365–2382.
    1. Immediate post-concussion assessment and cognitive testing (ImPACT) practices of sports medicine professionals. Covassin T, Elbin RJ 3rd, Stiller-Ostrowski JL, Kontos AP. J Athl Train. 2009;44:639–644.
    1. Concussion symptom scales and sideline assessment tools: a critical literature update. Eckner JT, Kutcher JS. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2010;9:8–15.
    1. ImPact test-retest reliability: reliably unreliable? Resch J, Driscoll A, McCaffrey N, et al. J Athl Train. 2013;48:506–511.
    1. Use of neuropsychological evaluations. Coppel DB. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2011;22:653–664.
    1. Comparison and utility of King-Devick and ImPACT(R) composite scores in adolescent concussion patients. Tjarks BJ, Dorman JC, Valentine VD, et al. J Neurol Sci. 2013;334:148–153.
    1. Psychometric properties of self-report concussion scales and checklists. McLeod TC, Leach C. J Athl Train. 2012;47:221–223.
    1. Sensitivity of the concussion assessment battery. Broglio SP, Macciocchi SN, Ferrara MS. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:1050–1057.
    1. Sensitivity and specificity of subacute computerized neurocognitive testing and symptom evaluation in predicting outcomes after sports-related concussion. Lau BC, Collins MW, Lovell MR. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:1209–1216.
    1. Standardized mental status assessment of sports concussion. McCrea M. Clin J Sport Med. 2001;11:176–181.
    1. Summary of evidence-based guideline update: evaluation and management of concussion in sports: report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Giza CC, Kutcher JS, Ashwal S, et al. Neurology. 2013;80:2250–2257.
    1. Sport-related concussion: on-field and sideline assessment. Guskiewicz KM, Broglio SP. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2011;22:603–617.
    1. Evidence-based approach to revising the SCAT2: introducing the SCAT3. Guskiewicz KM, Register-Mihalik J, McCrory P, et al. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:289–293.
    1. McCrory P, Meeuwisse WH, Aubry M, et al. Br J Sports Med. Vol. 47. Zurich: 2013. Consensus statement on concussion; pp. 250–258.
    1. Computer-based assessment of sports-related concussion. Schatz P, Zillmer EA. Appl Neuropsychol. 2003;10:42–47.
    1. Concussion history is not a predictor of computerised neurocognitive performance. Broglio SP, Ferrara MS, Piland SG, et al. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40:802–805.
    1. Sensitivity and specificity of the online version of ImPACT in high school and collegiate athletes. Schatz P, Sandel N. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:321–326.
    1. Two-year test–retest reliability of ImPACT in high school athletes. Tsushima WT, Siu AM, Pearce AM, et al. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2016;31:105–111.
    1. Interpreting change on ImPACT following sport concussion. Iverson GL, Lovell MR, Collins MW. Clin Neuropsychol. 2003;17:460–467.
    1. Sensitivity and specificity of the ImPACT Test Battery for concussion in athletes. Schatz P, Pardini JE, Lovell MR, et al. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21:91–99.
    1. The Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing battery and traditional neuropsychological measures: a construct and concurrent validity study. Allen BJ, Gfeller JD. Brain Inj. 2011;25:179–191.
    1. Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid for Concussion. Final order. Food and Drug Administration, HHS HHS. . Fed Regist. 2016;81:87810–87812.
    1. FDA allows marketing of first-of-kind computerized cognitive tests to help assess cognitive skills after a head injury. 2016
    1. Differential rates of recovery after acute sport-related concussion: electrophysiologic, symptomatic, and neurocognitive indices. Livingston SC, Goodkin HP, Hertel JN, et al. . J Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;29:23–32.
    1. Test-retest reliability of computerized concussion assessment programs. Broglio SP, Ferrara MS, Macciocchi SN, et al. J Athl Train. 2007;42:509–514.
    1. CogSport: reliability and correlation with conventional cognitive tests used in postconcussion medical evaluations. Collie A, Maruff P, Makdissi M, et al. . Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13:28–32.
    1. Diagnostic efficiency of ImPACT and CogSport in concussed rugby union players who have not undergone baseline neurocognitive testing. Gardner A, Shores EA, Batchelor J, Honan CA. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2012;19:90–97.
    1. Concussions in amateur rugby union identified with the use of a rapid visual screening tool. King D, Brughelli M, Hume P, Gissane C. J Neurol Sci. 2013;326:59–63.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅