Diagnostic predictive values for sport-related concussions: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

被引:1
|
作者
Dharnipragada, Rajiv [1 ]
Naik, Anant [2 ]
Denduluri, Lalitha Saahiti [3 ]
Bederson, Maria [2 ]
Akkad, Adam [2 ]
Cramer, Samuel W. [1 ]
Koester, Stefan W. [5 ]
Catapano, Joshua S. [6 ]
Zuckerman, Scott L. [5 ]
Snyder, Laura [6 ]
Arnold, Paul M. [4 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota Twin Cities, Med Sch, Minneapolis, MN USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Carle Illinois Coll Med, Urbana, IL USA
[3] Univ Minnesota Twin Cities, Coll Liberal Arts, Minneapolis, MN USA
[4] Carle Fdn Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Urbana, IL USA
[5] Vanderbilt Univ Sch Med, Dept Neurosurg, Nashville, TN USA
[6] Barrow Neurol Inst, Dept Neurosurg, Phoenix, AZ USA
[7] Carle Fdn Hosp, Carle Illinois Coll Med, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
关键词
sports; concussion; diagnostic tools; meta-analysis; trauma; traumatic brain injury; KING-DEVICK TEST; HIGH-SCHOOL; INTERNATIONAL-CONFERENCE; CONSENSUS STATEMENT; RUGBY LEAGUE; COLLEGIATE; BALANCE; RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY; FOOTBALL;
D O I
10.3171/2023.6.JNS23279
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE Sport-related concussions (SRCs) can cause significant neurological symptoms, and approximately 10%- 15% of athletes with SRC experience a prolonged recovery. Given the lack of visible injury on brain imaging and their varied presentations, concussions can be difficult to diagnose. A variety of tests and examination methods have been used to elicit a concussion diagnosis; however, the sensitivity and specificity of these tests are variable. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of standardized tests and visible signs like balance and vision changes in the diagnosis of SRC. METHODS A PRISMA-adherent systematic review of concussion diagnostic examinations was performed using the PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 1, 2022. Search terms included "concussion," "traumatic brain injury," "diagnosis," "sensitivity," and "specificity." Each method of examination was categorized into larger group-based symptomatologic presentations or standardized tools. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of concussion. Pooled specificity and sensitivity for each method were calculated using a meta-analysis of proportion and were hierarchically ranked using P-scores calculated from a diagnostic frequentist network meta-analysis. RESULTS Thirty full-length articles were identified for inclusion, 13 of which evaluated grouped symptomology exami- nations (balance and overall clinical presentation) and 17 of which evaluated established formalized tools (ImPACT, King-Devick [K -D] Test, Sport Concussion Assessment Tool [SCAT]). The pooled specificity of the examination methods differed minimally (0.8-0.85), whereas the sensitivity varied to a larger degree (0.5-0.88). In a random effects model, the SCAT had the greatest diagnostic yield (diagnostic OR 31.65, 95% CI 11.06-90.57). Additionally, P-score hierarchi- cal ranking revealed SCAT as having the greatest diagnostic utility (p = 0.9733), followed sequentially by ImPACT, clinical presentation, K -D, and balance. CONCLUSIONS In deciphering which concussion symptom-focused examinations and standardized tools are most accurate in making a concussion diagnosis, the authors found that the SCAT examination has the greatest diagnostic yield, followed by ImPACT, clinical presentation, and K -D, which have comparable value for diagnosis. Given the indirect nature of this analysis, however, further comparative studies are needed to validate the findings.
引用
收藏
页码:560 / 569
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Orthostatic Vitals as a Diagnostic Tool for Sport-Related Concussion
    Sas, Andrew
    Gillenkirk, Aleah
    Popovich, Michael
    Almeida, Andrea
    Eckner, James
    Ichesco, Ingrid
    Grant, John
    Lorincz, Matthew
    NEUROLOGY, 2020, 94 (15)
  • [22] Diagnostic Value of Hepcidin in Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Zhang, Jingxiao
    Zheng, Zhifang
    Ren, Lei
    Wang, Chenhong
    Li, Yue
    Hu, Xidan
    Zhang, Jie
    Jing, Xiaoqing
    Jin, Yuzi
    JOURNAL OF INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2024,
  • [23] Diagnostic Value of Presepsin for Sepsis A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Zhang, Jing
    Hu, Zhi-De
    Song, Jia
    Shao, Jiang
    MEDICINE, 2015, 94 (47) : e2158
  • [24] Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Biomarkers for Pediatric Pneumonia
    Gunaratnam, Lourdes Cynthia
    Robinson, Joan L.
    Hawkes, Michael T.
    JOURNAL OF THE PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY, 2021, 10 (09) : 891 - 900
  • [25] Diagnostic test accuracy: methods for systematic review and meta-analysis
    Campbell, Jared M.
    Klugar, Miloslav
    Ding, Sandrine
    Carmody, Dennis P.
    Hakonsen, Sasja J.
    Jadotte, Yuri T.
    White, Sarahlouise
    Munn, Zachary
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTHCARE, 2015, 13 (03) : 154 - 162
  • [26] A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic delay in pulmonary embolism
    van Maanen, R.
    Trinks-Roerdink, E. M.
    Rutten, F. H.
    Geersing, G. J.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2022, 28 (01) : 165 - 172
  • [27] The diagnostic performance of adrenal biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bancos, Irina
    Tamhane, Shrikant
    Shah, Muhammad
    Delivanis, Danae A.
    Alahdab, Fares
    Arlt, Wiebke
    Fassnacht, Martin
    Murad, M. Hassan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2016, 175 (02) : R65 - R80
  • [28] Diagnostic biomarkers and aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Chen, Hongjian
    Li, Yunjie
    Li, Zheqian
    Shi, Yanli
    Zhu, Haobo
    BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [29] Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic and Prognostic Studies: a Tutorial
    de Sousa, Marcos R.
    Ribeiro, Antonio Luiz P.
    ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2009, 92 (03) : 241 - 251
  • [30] Diagnostic accuracy of tests for leprosy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Gurung, P.
    Gomes, C. M.
    Vernal, S.
    Leeflang, M. M. G.
    CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2019, 25 (11) : 1315 - 1327