Literature DB >> 34375406

Interpreting Clinical Reaction Time Change and Recovery After Concussion: A Baseline Versus Norm-Based Cutoff Score Comparison.

Jaclyn B Caccese1, James T Eckner2, Lea Franco-MacKendrick2, Joseph B Hazzard3, Meng Ni4, Steven P Broglio5, Thomas W McAllister6, Michael A McCrea7, Paul F Pasquina8,9, Thomas A Buckley10,11.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Preseason testing can be time intensive and cost prohibitive. Therefore, using normative data for postconcussion interpretation in lieu of preseason testing is desirable.
OBJECTIVE: To establish the recovery trajectory for clinical reaction time (RTclin) and assess the usefulness of changes from baseline (comparison of postconcussion scores with individual baseline scores) and norm-based cutoff scores (comparison of postconcussion scores with a normative mean) for identifying impairments postconcussion.
DESIGN: Case-control study.
SETTING: Multisite clinical setting. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: An overlapping sample of 99 participants (age = 19.0 ± 1.1 years) evaluated within 6 hours postconcussion, 176 participants (age = 18.9 ± 1.1 years) evaluated at 24 to 48 hours postconcussion, and 214 participants (age = 18.9 ± 1.1 years) evaluated once they were cleared to begin a return-to-play progression were included. Participants with concussion were compared with 942 control participants (age = 19.0 ± 1.0 years) who did not sustain a concussion during the study period but completed preseason baseline testing at 2 points separated by 1 year (years 1 and 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): At each time point, follow-up RTclin (ie, postconcussion or year 2) was compared with the individual year 1 preseason baseline RTclin and normative baseline data (ie, sex and sport specific). Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated to compare the sensitivity and specificity of RTclin change from baseline and norm-based cutoff scores.
RESULTS: Clinical reaction time performance declined within 6 hours (18 milliseconds, 9.2% slower than baseline). The decline persisted at 24 to 48 hours (15 milliseconds, 7.6% slower than baseline), but performance recovered by the time of return-to-play initiation. Within 6 hours, a change from baseline of 16 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (52%) and specificity (79%, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.702), whereas a norm-based cutoff score of 19 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (46%) and specificity (86%, AUC = 0.700). At 24 to 48 hours, a change from baseline of 2 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (64%) and specificity (61%, AUC = 0.666), whereas a norm-based cutoff score of 0 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (63%) and specificity (62%, AUC = 0.647).
CONCLUSIONS: Norm-based cutoff scores can be used for interpreting RTclin scores postconcussion in collegiate athletes when individual baseline data are not available, although low sensitivity and specificity limit the use of RTclin as a stand-alone test. © by the National Athletic Trainers' Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnosis; evaluation; management; mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI); response time

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34375406      PMCID: PMC8359707          DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-457-20

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   3.824


  18 in total

1.  Clinical Reaction-Time Performance Factors in Healthy Collegiate Athletes.

Authors:  Jaclyn B Caccese; James T Eckner; Lea Franco-MacKendrick; Joseph B Hazzard; Meng Ni; Steven P Broglio; Thomas W McAllister; Michael McCrea; Thomas A Buckley
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Evaluating a clinical measure of reaction time: an observational study.

Authors:  James T Eckner; Ross D Whitacre; Ned L Kirsch; James K Richardson
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2009-06

3.  Examination of Reaction Time Deficits Following Concussion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Landon B Lempke; David R Howell; James T Eckner; Robert C Lynall
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Consensus statement on concussion in sport-the 5th international conference on concussion in sport held in Berlin, October 2016.

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

5.  American Medical Society for Sports Medicine position statement on concussion in sport.

Authors:  Kimberly G Harmon; James R Clugston; Katherine Dec; Brian Hainline; Stanley Herring; Shawn F Kane; Anthony P Kontos; John J Leddy; Michael McCrea; Sourav K Poddar; Margot Putukian; Julie C Wilson; William O Roberts
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 13.800

6.  Between-seasons test-retest reliability of clinically measured reaction time in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes.

Authors:  James T Eckner; Jeffrey S Kutcher; James K Richardson
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Can a clinical test of reaction time predict a functional head-protective response?

Authors:  James T Eckner; David B Lipps; Hogene Kim; James K Richardson; James A Ashton-Miller
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  Pilot evaluation of a novel clinical test of reaction time in national collegiate athletic association division I football players.

Authors:  James T Eckner; Jeffrey S Kutcher; James K Richardson
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Investigating the role of feedback and motivation in clinical reaction time assessment.

Authors:  James T Eckner; Srikrishna Chandran; James K Richardson
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.298

10.  Effect of concussion on clinically measured reaction time in 9 NCAA division I collegiate athletes: a preliminary study.

Authors:  James T Eckner; Jeffrey S Kutcher; James K Richardson
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.