» Articles » PMID: 29456902

Review of Assessment Scales for Diagnosing and Monitoring Sports-related Concussion

Overview
Journal Cureus
Date 2018 Feb 20
PMID 29456902
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Sports-related concussion has emerged as a public health crisis due to increased diagnosis of the condition and increased participation in organized and recreational athletics worldwide. Under-recognition of concussions can lead to premature clearance for athletic participation, leaving athletes vulnerable to repeat injury and subsequent short- and long-term complications. There is overwhelming evidence that assessment and management of sports-related concussions should involve a multifaceted approach. A number of assessment criteria have been developed for this purpose. It is important to understand the available and emerging diagnostic testing modalities for sports-related concussions. The most commonly used tools for evaluating individuals with concussion are the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS), Standard Assessment of Concussion (SAC), Standard Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT3), and the most recognized computerized neurocognitive test, the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). The strengths and limitations of each of these tools, and the Concussion Resolution Index (CRI), CogSport, and King-Devick tests were evaluated. Based on the data, it appears that the most sensitive and specific of these is the ImPACT test. Additionally, the King-Devick test is an effective adjunct due to its ability to test eye movements and brainstem function.

Citing Articles

Efficacy of biomarkers and imaging techniques for the diagnosis of traumatic brain injury: challenges and opportunities.

Duerksen J, Lopez R, Tappia P, Ramjiawan B, Mansouri B Mol Cell Biochem. 2024; .

PMID: 39656395 DOI: 10.1007/s11010-024-05176-w.


Assessing Mild Traumatic Brain Injury-Associated Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB) Damage and Restoration Using Late-Phase Perfusion Analysis by 3D ASL MRI: Implications for Predicting Progressive Brain Injury in a Focused Review.

Joseph C Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(21).

PMID: 39519073 PMC: 11547134. DOI: 10.3390/ijms252111522.


Heads up on concussion: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' knowledge and understanding of mild traumatic brain injury.

McCausland K, Thomas E, Bullen J, Hill-Wall T, Norman R, Cowen G Health Promot J Austr. 2024; 36(1):e892.

PMID: 38993014 PMC: 11729264. DOI: 10.1002/hpja.892.


Maximizing the Clinical Value of Blood-Based Biomarkers for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

Rauchman S, Pinkhasov A, Gulkarov S, Placantonakis D, Leon J, Reiss A Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(21).

PMID: 37958226 PMC: 10650880. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13213330.


Precision Concussion Management: Approaches to Quantifying Head Injury Severity and Recovery.

de Souza D, Jarmol M, Bell C, Marini C, Balcer L, Galetta S Brain Sci. 2023; 13(9).

PMID: 37759953 PMC: 10526525. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13091352.


References
1.
Marshall C . Sports-related concussion: A narrative review of the literature. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2012; 56(4):299-310. PMC: 3501917. View

2.
Tjarks B, Dorman J, Valentine V, Munce T, Thompson P, Kindt S . Comparison and utility of King-Devick and ImPACT® composite scores in adolescent concussion patients. J Neurol Sci. 2013; 334(1-2):148-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2013.08.015. View

3.
Resch J, Driscoll A, McCaffrey N, Brown C, Ferrara M, Macciocchi S . ImPact test-retest reliability: reliably unreliable?. J Athl Train. 2013; 48(4):506-11. PMC: 3718353. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.3.09. View

4.
Broglio S, Ferrara M, Piland S, Anderson R, Collie A . Concussion history is not a predictor of computerised neurocognitive performance. Br J Sports Med. 2006; 40(9):802-5. PMC: 2564398. DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.028019. View

5.
Livingston S, Goodkin H, Hertel J, Saliba E, Barth J, Ingersoll C . Differential rates of recovery after acute sport-related concussion: electrophysiologic, symptomatic, and neurocognitive indices. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2012; 29(1):23-32. DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e318246ae46. View