ArticleJournal of athletic training
Evidence for added value of baseline testing in computer-based cognitive assessment.
Article in Journal of athletic training. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurocognitive Assessment Tools for Military Personnel With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Scoping Literature Review.JMIR mental health · 2021Article
- Socioeconomic status and race as social determinants of health to be considered in clinical use of pre-season vestibular and oculomotor tests for concussion.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2020Article
- Diagnosing mild traumatic brain injury using saliva RNA compared to cognitive and balance testing.Clinical and translational medicine · 2020Article
- Prospective Changes in Vestibular and Ocular Motor Impairment After Concussion.Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT · 2018Article
- A COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING MILD TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY (MTBI)/CONCUSSION IN INDEPENDENT ADULTS: A PILOT STUDY.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2017Article
- Administration and environment considerations in computer-based sports-concussion assessment.Neuropsychology review · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextLarge-scale baseline cognitive assessment for individuals at risk for concussion is a common part of the protocol for concussion-surveillance programs, particularly in sports. Baseline cognitive testing is also being conducted in US military service members before deployment. Recently, the incremental validity of large-scale baseline cognitive assessment has been questioned.
objectiveTo examine the added value of baseline cognitive testing in computer-based neuropsychological assessment by comparing 2 methods of classifying atypical performance in a presumed healthy sample.
designCross-sectional study.
settingMilitary base. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsMilitary service members who took the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Matrix (ANAM) before and after deployment (n = 8002). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Rates of atypical performance in this healthy, active-duty sample were determined first by comparing postdeployment scores with a military normative database and then with each individual's personal baseline performance using a reliable change index.
resultsOverall rates of atypical performance were comparable across these 2 methods. However, these methods were highly discordant in terms of which individuals were classified as atypical. When norm-referenced methods were used, 2.6% of individuals classified as normal actually demonstrated declines from baseline. Further, 65.7% of individuals classified as atypical using norm-referenced scores showed no change from baseline (ie, potential false-positive findings).
conclusionsKnowing an individual's baseline performance is important for minimizing potential false-positive errors and reducing the risks and stresses of misdiagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.