ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2017
A COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING MILD TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY (MTBI)/CONCUSSION IN INDEPENDENT ADULTS: A PILOT STUDY.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability, Validity and Utility of Inertial Sensor Systems for Postural Control Assessment in Sport Science and Medicine Applications: A Systematic Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Pooled it
- Multi-Modal Neurorehabilitation for Persisting Post-Concussion Symptoms.Neurotrauma reports · 2023Article
- Effect of Weight Class on Regional Brain Volume, Cognition, and Other Neuropsychiatric Outcomes among Professional Fighters.Neurotrauma reports · 2021Article
- Monitoring neurocognitive functioning in childhood cancer survivors: evaluation of CogState computerized assessment and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF).BMC psychology · 2019Article
- Digital neuropsychological test performance in a large sample of uninjured collegiate athletes.Applied neuropsychology. AdultArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne common component of concussion rehabilitation is a computerized cognitive test free of concomitant physical demands. Healthcare professionals may be able to provide more patient-centered care after a diagnosed concussion if specific areas of impairment are identified and treated, such as the physical aspect of neurocognitive function. Hypothesis/Purpose: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of a unique combination of neurocognitive assessment tools currently utilized in concussion assessments into one single, inclusive instrument that measures both neurocognitive function and physical capability. STUDY
designOriginal research - diagnostic tests.
methodsFourteen individuals (nine males, age: 29 + 17.9, five females, age: 46.0 ± 21.5 years) either with normal cognitive function (NBI) without history of a health event (e.g. cerebral vascular accident/stroke, mTBI) that resulted in brain injury within one year of the study, or who had suffered a health event that has resulted in a medically documented brain injury (BI) participated in the study. Participants completed the full hybrid assessment instrument for a baseline test, then completed a follow-up test using the same instrument within 72-96 hours of baseline. Test-retest reliability was measured using Pearson product-moment correlations of the first and second testing sessions, and a two-way ANOVA (group between factor: NBI and BI and time within factor: session 1 and session 2) was performed on the summative scores to determine differences between each group.
resultsTest-retest reliability was strong and statistical significant for both the NBI (
conclusionThe newly created Comprehensive Instrument for Evaluating Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (CIEMTBI) demonstrates good test-retest reliability and was able to discriminate the results between individuals in the NBI and BI groups. Further research, specifically with different samples, is needed to better determine the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the instrument. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28593091PMC5455187W2985027079What 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.