Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28771032›Full record

SynthesisJournal of athletic training2017

Reliability of Computerized Neurocognitive Tests for Concussion Assessment: A Meta-Analysis.

James L Farnsworth, Lucas Dargo, Brian G Ragan, Minsoo Kang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of athletic training, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Test-Retest Reliability of Remote ImPACT Administration.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

James L FarnsworthSchool of Education and Exercise Science, Buena Vista University, Storm Lake, IA.
Lucas DargoEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN.
Brian G RaganDeceased.
Minsoo KangMiddle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAlthough widely used, computerized neurocognitive tests (CNTs) have been criticized because of low reliability and poor sensitivity. A systematic review was published summarizing the reliability of Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) scores; however, this was limited to a single CNT. Expansion of the previous review to include additional CNTs and a meta-analysis is needed. Therefore, our purpose was to analyze reliability data for CNTs using meta-analysis and examine moderating factors that may influence reliability. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search (key terms: reliability, computerized neurocognitive test, concussion) of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SPORTDiscus) was conducted to identify relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they met all of the following criteria: used a test-retest design, involved at least 1 CNT, provided sufficient statistical data to allow for effect-size calculation, and were published in English. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers investigated each article to assess inclusion criteria. Eighteen studies involving 2674 participants were retained. Intraclass correlation coefficients were extracted to calculate effect sizes and determine overall reliability. The Fisher Z transformation adjusted for sampling error associated with averaging correlations. Moderator analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of the length of the test-retest interval, intraclass correlation coefficient model selection, participant demographics, and study design on reliability. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochran Q statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: The proportion of acceptable outcomes was greatest for the Axon Sports CogState Test (75%) and lowest for the ImPACT (25%). Moderator analyses indicated that the type of intraclass correlation coefficient model used significantly influenced effect-size estimates, accounting for 17% of the variation in reliability.

conclusionsThe Axon Sports CogState Test, which has a higher proportion of acceptable outcomes and shorter test duration relative to other CNTs, may be a reliable option; however, future studies are needed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these instruments.

Indexed as

Athletic InjuriesBrain ConcussionDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMaleMental Status and Dementia TestsNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsResearch Designcognitive functionhead injuriestest-retest designtraumatic brain injuries

Identifiers

PMID28771032
PMCPMC5634231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.