Bert B Vargas1, Morgan Shepard2, Joseph G Hentz2, Cherisse Kutyreff2, L George Hershey2, Amaal J Starling2. 1. From the Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics (B.B.V.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Departments of Neurology (M.S., A.J.S.) and Biostatistics (J.G.H.), Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Scottsdale; and Department of Sports Medicine (C.K., L.G.H.), Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. bert.vargas@UTSouthwestern.edu. 2. From the Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics (B.B.V.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Departments of Neurology (M.S., A.J.S.) and Biostatistics (J.G.H.), Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Scottsdale; and Department of Sports Medicine (C.K., L.G.H.), Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and accuracy of telemedical concussion evaluations (teleconcussion) for real-time athletic sideline assessment of concussion, as such assessment may address the gap in access some populations of athletes have to providers with expertise in concussion evaluation. METHODS: A cohort of 11 consecutive male collegiate football players with suspected concussion was assessed using Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC), King-Devick test (K-D), and modified Balance Error Scoring System (mBESS). A remote neurologist assessed each athlete using a telemedicine robot with real-time, 2-way audiovisual capabilities, while a sideline provider performed a simultaneous face-to-face assessment. After the assessment, a remove-from-play (RFP) determination was made. The remote and the face-to-face providers were blinded to each other's examination findings and RFP decision until the end of the assessment. RESULTS: The teleconcussion and face-to-face SAC were in agreement 100% of the time (6/6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 54%-100%). The mean (SD) difference between remote and sideline K-D times was 0.7 (1.4) seconds. Remote and sideline K-D times were within a 3-second difference 100% of the time (11/11; 95% CI 72%-100%). Remote and sideline mBESS scores were within 3 points 100% of the time (6/6; 95% CI 54%-100%). RFP decisions were in agreement 100% of the time (11/11; 95% CI 72%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of teleconcussion for sideline concussion assessments. These data suggest a high level of agreement between remote and face-to-face providers with regard to examination findings and RFP determinations.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and accuracy of telemedical concussion evaluations (teleconcussion) for real-time athletic sideline assessment of concussion, as such assessment may address the gap in access some populations of athletes have to providers with expertise in concussion evaluation. METHODS: A cohort of 11 consecutive male collegiate football players with suspected concussion was assessed using Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC), King-Devick test (K-D), and modified Balance Error Scoring System (mBESS). A remote neurologist assessed each athlete using a telemedicine robot with real-time, 2-way audiovisual capabilities, while a sideline provider performed a simultaneous face-to-face assessment. After the assessment, a remove-from-play (RFP) determination was made. The remote and the face-to-face providers were blinded to each other's examination findings and RFP decision until the end of the assessment. RESULTS: The teleconcussion and face-to-face SAC were in agreement 100% of the time (6/6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 54%-100%). The mean (SD) difference between remote and sideline K-D times was 0.7 (1.4) seconds. Remote and sideline K-D times were within a 3-second difference 100% of the time (11/11; 95% CI 72%-100%). Remote and sideline mBESS scores were within 3 points 100% of the time (6/6; 95% CI 54%-100%). RFP decisions were in agreement 100% of the time (11/11; 95% CI 72%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of teleconcussion for sideline concussion assessments. These data suggest a high level of agreement between remote and face-to-face providers with regard to examination findings and RFP determinations.
Authors: Brent D Bates; Lucas W Mayer; Ikechukwu C Amakiri; Forrest Rackard; Miguel A Reyes-Zaragoza; Charles F Carr Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jacob I McPherson; Ghazala T Saleem; M Nadir Haider; John J Leddy; Daniel M Torres; Barry Willer Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Michael J Ellis; Susan Boles; Vickie Derksen; Brenda Dawyduk; Adam Amadu; Karen Stelmack; Matthew Kowalchuk; Kelly Russell Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.228