ArticlePloS one2021
The Brain Injury Screening Tool (BIST): Tool development, factor structure and validity.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Factors for Fall-Related Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review Highlighting Research Gaps.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- The role of occupational therapy in the rehabilitation of adults with persistent post-concussion symptoms in Australia and New Zealand: A qualitative study.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Silent Trauma: Implications of Non-Fatal Strangulation-Acquired Brain Injury - An Integrative Review.Neuropsychology review · 2026Review
- Tools for Diagnosing and Managing Sport-Related Concussion in UK Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Recognition and Detection of Concussion in the Community: Implications for Primary Care in the UK.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Article
- Characterizing positive and negative quantitative susceptibility values in the cortex following mild traumatic brain injury: a depth- and curvature-based study.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Mild traumatic brain injury increases cortical iron: evidence from individual susceptibility mapping.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Female RNA concussion (FeRNAC) study: assessing hormone profiles and salivary RNA in females with concussion by emergency departments in New Zealand: a study protocol.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- Individual-level analysis of MRI T2 relaxometry in mild traumatic brain injury: Possible indications of brain inflammation.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2024Article
- Brain Injury Screening Tool (BIST): test-retest reliability in a community adult sample.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Rehabilitation among individuals experiencing homelessness and traumatic brain injury: A scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently health care pathways (the combination and order of services that a patient receives to manage their injury) following a mild traumatic brain injury vary considerably. Some clinicians lack confidence in injury recognition, management and knowing when to refer. A clinical expert group developed the Brain Injury Screening Tool (BIST) to provide guidance on health care pathways based on clinical indicators of poor recovery. The tool aims to facilitate access to specialist services (if required) to improve longer term prognosis. The tool was developed using a three-step process including: 1) domain mapping; 2) item development and 3) item testing and review. An online retrospective survey of 114 adults (>16 years) who had experienced a mild brain injury in the past 10 years was used to determine the initial psychometric properties of the 15-item symptom scale of the BIST. Participants were randomised to complete the BIST and one of two existing symptom scales; the Rivermead Post-concussion Symptom Questionnaire (RPQ) or the Sports Concussion Assessment Test (SCAT-5) symptom scale to determine concurrent validity. Participant responses to the BIST symptom scale items were used to determine scale reliability using Cronbach's alpha. A principal components analysis explored the underlying factor structure. Spearman's correlation coefficients determined concurrent validity with the RPQ and SCAT-5 symptom scales. The 15 items were found to require a reading age of 6-8 years old using readability statistics. High concurrent validity was shown against the RPQ (r = 0.91) and SCAT-5 (r = 0.90). The BIST total symptom scale (α = 0.94) and the three factors identified demonstrated excellent internal consistency: physical/emotional (α = 0.90), cognitive (α = 0.92) and vestibular-ocular (α = 0.80). This study provides evidence to support the utility, internal consistency, factor structure and concurrent validity of the BIST. Further research is warranted to determine the utility of the BIST scoring criteria and responsiveness to change in patients.
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.