Phoebe Haste, Leonardo de Almeida E Bueno, Antoine Jérusalem, Jeroen Bergmann
{"title":"Performance of current tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury in sport: a systematic review.","authors":"Phoebe Haste, Leonardo de Almeida E Bueno, Antoine Jérusalem, Jeroen Bergmann","doi":"10.1136/bmjsem-2024-001904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The monitoring and diagnosis of sports-related mild traumatic brain injury (SR-mTBI) remains a challenge. This systematic review summarises the current monitoring tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of SR-mTBI and their performance.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies assessment.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Embase via Ovid, IEEEXplore, Medline via Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science were searched up to June 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Peer-reviewed English-language journal articles which measured athletes using the index test within a day of injury and provided a performance measure for the method used. Studies of all designs were accepted, and no reference methods were required.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2534 unique records were retrieved, with 52 reports included in the review. Participants were 76% male, when reported, and the mean injury-to-measurement time was reported in 10% of reports. 46 different methods were investigated. 38 different reference methods were used, highlighting the lack of gold standard within the field. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were the most frequent outcome metrics provided. The most frequent index test was the King-Devick (KD) test. However, there were large variations in accuracy metrics between reports for the KD test, for instance, the range of AUC: 0.51-0.92.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combinations of existing methods and the KD test were most accurate in assessing SR-mTBI, despite the inconsistent accuracy values related to the KD test. The absence of a gold-standard measurement hampers our ability to diagnose or monitor SR-mTBI. Further exploration of the mechanisms and time-dependent pathophysiology of SR-mTBI could result in more targeted diagnostic and monitoring techniques. The Podium Institute for Sports Medicine and Technology funded this work.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42022376560.</p>","PeriodicalId":47417,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"e001904"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11808887/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2024-001904","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The monitoring and diagnosis of sports-related mild traumatic brain injury (SR-mTBI) remains a challenge. This systematic review summarises the current monitoring tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of SR-mTBI and their performance.
Design: Systematic review, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies assessment.
Data sources: Embase via Ovid, IEEEXplore, Medline via Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science were searched up to June 2024.
Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed English-language journal articles which measured athletes using the index test within a day of injury and provided a performance measure for the method used. Studies of all designs were accepted, and no reference methods were required.
Results: 2534 unique records were retrieved, with 52 reports included in the review. Participants were 76% male, when reported, and the mean injury-to-measurement time was reported in 10% of reports. 46 different methods were investigated. 38 different reference methods were used, highlighting the lack of gold standard within the field. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were the most frequent outcome metrics provided. The most frequent index test was the King-Devick (KD) test. However, there were large variations in accuracy metrics between reports for the KD test, for instance, the range of AUC: 0.51-0.92.
Conclusion: Combinations of existing methods and the KD test were most accurate in assessing SR-mTBI, despite the inconsistent accuracy values related to the KD test. The absence of a gold-standard measurement hampers our ability to diagnose or monitor SR-mTBI. Further exploration of the mechanisms and time-dependent pathophysiology of SR-mTBI could result in more targeted diagnostic and monitoring techniques. The Podium Institute for Sports Medicine and Technology funded this work.
目的:运动相关性轻度创伤性脑损伤(SR-mTBI)的监测和诊断仍然是一个挑战。本系统综述总结了目前用于SR-mTBI日常评估和诊断的监测工具及其性能。设计:系统回顾,使用诊断准确性研究评估的质量评估。数据来源:Embase via Ovid, IEEEXplore, Medline via Ovid, Scopus和Web of Science检索截止到2024年6月。资格标准:同行评审的英文期刊文章,在受伤的一天内使用指数测试来测量运动员,并为所使用的方法提供了一个性能衡量标准。所有设计的研究都被接受,不需要参考方法。结果:共检索到2534条唯一记录,其中52份报告被纳入综述。当报告时,参与者中76%为男性,报告的平均受伤至测量时间为10%。研究了46种不同的方法。使用了38种不同的参考方法,突出了该领域缺乏金标准。曲线下面积(AUC)、敏感性和特异性是提供的最常见的结局指标。最常见的指标试验是King-Devick (KD)试验。然而,KD测试报告之间的准确性指标存在很大差异,例如,AUC范围为0.51-0.92。结论:尽管与KD试验相关的准确性值不一致,但现有方法和KD试验的组合在评估SR-mTBI时最准确。缺乏金标准的测量妨碍了我们诊断或监测SR-mTBI的能力。进一步探索SR-mTBI的机制和时间依赖的病理生理学,可以带来更有针对性的诊断和监测技术。领奖台运动医学和技术研究所资助了这项工作。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42022376560。