PURPOSE: Evaluate the discriminatory ability of two clinical measures and one device-based measure of gait and balance for concussed youth. METHODS: We enrolled 81 cases and 90 controls age 14-18 yr old from August 2017 to June 2018. Controls were recruited from a suburban high school, and cases were recruited from the concussion program of an academic pediatric tertiary care center. Tests included two clinical measures: 1) complex tandem gait, scored as sway/errors walking forward and backward eyes open and closed; 2) Modified Balance Error Scoring System (mBESS), scored as total number of errors on three standing tasks; and one device-based measure; 3) Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (mCTSIB) using the Biodex Biosway Balance System, scored as a sway index. Sensitivity, specificity, ideal cutpoint, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for all test components. RESULTS: Ideal cutpoint for total number of sway/errors for tandem gait = 5, sensitivity 41%, specificity 90%. Ideal cutpoint for total mBESS errors = 4, sensitivity 55%, specificity 75%. Ideal cutpoint for mCTSIB = 1.37, sensitivity 37%, specificity 88%. Among each test, some individual components outperformed overall composites, in particular tandem gait (specificity forward eyes open = 99%, sensitivity backward eyes closed = 81%). Among the 40 cases and 65 controls with all three assessments, AUC (95% CI) for tandem gait = 0.63 (0.52,0.75), mBESS = 0.70 (0.60,0.81), and mCTSIB = 0.54 (0.42,0.66). CONCLUSIONS: A device-based measure of balance did not produce better discriminatory ability than two clinical assessments. Complex tandem gait has the additional benefit of being an easy-to-perform and graded test with highly sensitive and specific individual components.
PURPOSE: Evaluate the discriminatory ability of two clinical measures and one device-based measure of gait and balance for concussed youth. METHODS: We enrolled 81 cases and 90 controls age 14-18 yr old from August 2017 to June 2018. Controls were recruited from a suburban high school, and cases were recruited from the concussion program of an academic pediatric tertiary care center. Tests included two clinical measures: 1) complex tandem gait, scored as sway/errors walking forward and backward eyes open and closed; 2) Modified Balance Error Scoring System (mBESS), scored as total number of errors on three standing tasks; and one device-based measure; 3) Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (mCTSIB) using the Biodex Biosway Balance System, scored as a sway index. Sensitivity, specificity, ideal cutpoint, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for all test components. RESULTS: Ideal cutpoint for total number of sway/errors for tandem gait = 5, sensitivity 41%, specificity 90%. Ideal cutpoint for total mBESS errors = 4, sensitivity 55%, specificity 75%. Ideal cutpoint for mCTSIB = 1.37, sensitivity 37%, specificity 88%. Among each test, some individual components outperformed overall composites, in particular tandem gait (specificity forward eyes open = 99%, sensitivity backward eyes closed = 81%). Among the 40 cases and 65 controls with all three assessments, AUC (95% CI) for tandem gait = 0.63 (0.52,0.75), mBESS = 0.70 (0.60,0.81), and mCTSIB = 0.54 (0.42,0.66). CONCLUSIONS: A device-based measure of balance did not produce better discriminatory ability than two clinical assessments. Complex tandem gait has the additional benefit of being an easy-to-perform and graded test with highly sensitive and specific individual components.
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: Daniel J Corwin; Douglas J Wiebe; Mark R Zonfrillo; Matthew F Grady; Roni L Robinson; Arlene M Goodman; Christina L Master Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Jason C Dorman; Verle D Valentine; Thayne A Munce; B Joel Tjarks; Paul A Thompson; Michael F Bergeron Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Laurie A King; Martina Mancini; Peter C Fino; James Chesnutt; Clayton W Swanson; Sheila Markwardt; Julie C Chapman Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: John J Leddy; Mohammad Nadir Haider; James M Noble; Brian Rieger; Steven Flanagan; Jacob I McPherson; Kenneth Shubin-Stein; Ghazala T Saleem; Louis Corsaro; Barry Willer Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Divya Jain; Kristy B Arbogast; Catherine C McDonald; Olivia E Podolak; Susan S Margulies; Kristina B Metzger; David R Howell; Mitchell M Scheiman; Christina L Master Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Kristy B Arbogast; Riddhi P Ghosh; Daniel J Corwin; Catherine C McDonald; Fairuz N Mohammed; Susan S Margulies; Ian Barnett; Christina L Master Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2022-10 Impact factor: 4.869
Authors: Daniel J Corwin; Kristy B Arbogast; Casey Swann; Rebecca Haber; Matthew F Grady; Christina L Master Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Patricia R Roby; Kristina B Metzger; Catherine C McDonald; Daniel J Corwin; Colin M Huber; Declan A Patton; Susan S Margulies; Matthew F Grady; Christina L Master; Kristy B Arbogast Journal: Phys Sportsmed Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 2.241
Authors: Daniel Miner; Brent A Harper; Stephen Glass; Brooke Martin; Molly Polizotto; S Montana Hearl; Ellen Turner Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Katie A Van Deventer; Corrine N Seehusen; Gregory A Walker; Julie C Wilson; David R Howell Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 7.179
Authors: Daniel J Corwin; Catherine C McDonald; Kristy B Arbogast; Fairuz N Mohammed; Matthew F Grady; Christina L Master Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 3.454