Gian-Gabriel P Garcia1, Steven P Broglio2, Mariel S Lavieri3, Michael McCrea4, Thomas McAllister5. 1. Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, 1205 Beal Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. garciagg@umich.edu. 2. School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, 1205 Beal Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 4. Departments of Neurosurgery and Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many concussion assessment methods exist, but few studies quantify the performance of these methods to determine which can best assess acute concussion alone or in combination. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate: (1) selected concussion assessments for acute concussion assessment; (2) the utility of change scores for acute concussion assessment; and (3) concussion assessment capabilities when constrained to limited clinical data or objective clinical measures. METHODS: The 'acute concussion' group contained assessments from < 6 h post-injury (n = 560) and 24-48 h post-injury (n = 733). The 'normal performance' group contained assessments from baseline testing (n = 842) and unrestricted return to play (n = 707) timepoints. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were created separately for < 6- and 24- to 48-h timepoints. Models were evaluated on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Within the univariate analysis, Sport Concussion Assessment Tool symptom assessments had the highest combination of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, with values up to 0.93, 0.97, and 0.98, respectively. Full models had a sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve up to 0.94, 0.97, and 0.99, respectively, and outperformed all univariate models, raw score models, and objective models. Objective models were outperformed by all multivariate models and the univariate models containing only Sport Concussion Assessment Tool symptom assessments. CONCLUSION: Results support the use of multidimensional assessment batteries over single instruments and suggest the importance of self-reported symptoms in acute concussion assessment. Balance assessments, however, may not provide additional benefit when symptom and neurocognitive assessments are available. Additionally, change scores provide some clinical utility over raw scores, but the difference may not be clinically meaningful.
BACKGROUND: Many concussion assessment methods exist, but few studies quantify the performance of these methods to determine which can best assess acute concussion alone or in combination. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate: (1) selected concussion assessments for acute concussion assessment; (2) the utility of change scores for acute concussion assessment; and (3) concussion assessment capabilities when constrained to limited clinical data or objective clinical measures. METHODS: The 'acute concussion' group contained assessments from < 6 h post-injury (n = 560) and 24-48 h post-injury (n = 733). The 'normal performance' group contained assessments from baseline testing (n = 842) and unrestricted return to play (n = 707) timepoints. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were created separately for < 6- and 24- to 48-h timepoints. Models were evaluated on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Within the univariate analysis, Sport Concussion Assessment Tool symptom assessments had the highest combination of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, with values up to 0.93, 0.97, and 0.98, respectively. Full models had a sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve up to 0.94, 0.97, and 0.99, respectively, and outperformed all univariate models, raw score models, and objective models. Objective models were outperformed by all multivariate models and the univariate models containing only Sport Concussion Assessment Tool symptom assessments. CONCLUSION: Results support the use of multidimensional assessment batteries over single instruments and suggest the importance of self-reported symptoms in acute concussion assessment. Balance assessments, however, may not provide additional benefit when symptom and neurocognitive assessments are available. Additionally, change scores provide some clinical utility over raw scores, but the difference may not be clinically meaningful.
Authors: Andrew E Lincoln; Shane V Caswell; Jon L Almquist; Reginald E Dunn; Joseph B Norris; Richard Y Hinton Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-01-29 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Paul McCrory; Willem Meeuwisse; Jiří Dvořák; Mark Aubry; Julian Bailes; Steven Broglio; Robert C Cantu; David Cassidy; Ruben J Echemendia; Rudy J Castellani; Gavin A Davis; Richard Ellenbogen; Carolyn Emery; Lars Engebretsen; Nina Feddermann-Demont; Christopher C Giza; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Stanley Herring; Grant L Iverson; Karen M Johnston; James Kissick; Jeffrey Kutcher; John J Leddy; David Maddocks; Michael Makdissi; Geoff T Manley; Michael McCrea; William P Meehan; Shinji Nagahiro; Jon Patricios; Margot Putukian; Kathryn J Schneider; Allen Sills; Charles H Tator; Michael Turner; Pieter E Vos Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Ruben J Echemendia; Jared M Bruce; Christopher M Bailey; James Forrest Sanders; Peter Arnett; Gray Vargas Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Donna K Broshek; Tanya Kaushik; Jason R Freeman; David Erlanger; Frank Webbe; Jeffrey T Barth Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Kimberly G Harmon; Jonathan A Drezner; Matthew Gammons; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Mark Halstead; Stanley A Herring; Jeffrey S Kutcher; Andrea Pana; Margot Putukian; William O Roberts Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Katherine M Breedlove; Justus D Ortega; Thomas W Kaminski; Kimberly G Harmon; Julianne D Schmidt; Anthony P Kontos; James R Clugston; Sara P D Chrisman; Michael A McCrea; Thomas W McAllister; Steven P Broglio; Thomas A Buckley Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Steven P Broglio; Jaroslaw Harezlak; Barry Katz; Shi Zhao; Thomas McAllister; Michael McCrea Journal: Sports Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Suraj K Puvvada; Elizabeth M Davenport; James M Holcomb; Logan E Miller; Christopher T Whitlow; Alexander K Powers; Joseph A Maldjian; Joel D Stitzel; Jillian E Urban Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Timothy B Meier; Daniel L Huber; Luisa Bohorquez-Montoya; Morgan E Nitta; Jonathan Savitz; T Kent Teague; Jeffrey J Bazarian; Ronald L Hayes; Lindsay D Nelson; Michael A McCrea Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Nicholas G Murray; Ryan Moran; Arthur Islas; Phillip Pavilionis; Brian Szekely; Sushma Alphonsa; David Howell; Thomas Buckley; Daniel Cipriani Journal: J Clin Transl Res Date: 2021-07-16
Authors: Thomas Buckley; Nicholas G Murray; Barry A Munkasy; Jessie R Oldham; Kelsey M Evans; Brandy Clouse Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Landon B Lempke; Robert C Lynall; Nicole L Hoffman; Hannes Devos; Julianne D Schmidt Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 7.179