ArticleThe EPMA journal2015
Utilization of the clinical laboratory for the implementation of concussion biomarkers in collegiate football and the necessity of personalized and predictive athlete specific reference intervals.
Article in The EPMA journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the acute trajectory of sport-related concussion outcomes across symptoms, cognition, and blood biomarkers.Sports medicine and health science · 2026Review
- Medicine in the early twenty-first century: paradigm and anticipation - EPMA position paper 2016.The EPMA journal · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA continued interest in concussion biomarkers makes the eventual implementation of identified biomarkers into routine concussion assessment an eventual reality. We sought to develop and test an interdisciplinary approach that could be used to integrate blood-based biomarkers into the established concussion management program for a collegiate football team.
methodsWe used a CLIA-certified laboratory for all testing and chose biomarkers where clinically validated testing was available as would be required for results used in clinical decision making. We summarized the existing methods and results for concussion assessment across an entire season to identify and demonstrate the challenges with the eventual integration of a parallel process using blood-based tests for concussion management. We analyzed the results of the biomarkers chosen for trends consistent with the outcome assessments provided from the current concussion management protocols.
resultsBaseline samples were collected with three additional post-concussion samples collected at three separate time points from players with a diagnosed concussion (n = 12). A summary of results from currently used concussion assessment tools were compared to the representative biomarkers S100B and NSE results. Nine sport-related concussions occurred during practice and three during play. For S100B, 50 % had follow-up testing results lower than the post-injury result. In contrast, 92 % of NSE follow-up results were lower than post-injury. One hundred percent of the results for S100B and NSE were within the athlete-derived reference intervals upon return-to-play and season end.
conclusionsThe reported workflow provides a framework for the eventual implementation of biomarkers for concussion assessment into existing assessment protocols and strengthens the need for reliance on clinical laboratory testing. Athlete-specific reference intervals will be required to adequately interpret results.
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.