Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34375406›Full record

ArticleJournal of athletic training2021

Interpreting Clinical Reaction Time Change and Recovery After Concussion: A Baseline Versus Norm-Based Cutoff Score Comparison.

Jaclyn B Caccese, James T Eckner, Lea Franco-MacKendrick, Joseph B Hazzard, Meng Ni, Steven P Broglio, Thomas W McAllister, Michael A McCrea, Paul F Pasquina, Thomas A Buckley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of athletic training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

10 authors.

Jaclyn B CacceseSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.
James T EcknerDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Lea Franco-MacKendrickDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Joseph B HazzardDepartment of Exercise Science, loomsburg University, PA.
Meng NiThe Institute for Concussion Research & Services, Bloomsburg University, PA.
Steven P BroglioMichigan Concussion Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Thomas W McAllisterDepartment of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Michael A McCreaDepartment of Neurosurgery and Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Paul F PasquinaUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD.
Thomas A BuckleyDepartment of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware, Newark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextPreseason testing can be time intensive and cost prohibitive. Therefore, using normative data for postconcussion interpretation in lieu of preseason testing is desirable.

objectiveTo establish the recovery trajectory for clinical reaction time (RTclin) and assess the usefulness of changes from baseline (comparison of postconcussion scores with individual baseline scores) and norm-based cutoff scores (comparison of postconcussion scores with a normative mean) for identifying impairments postconcussion.

designCase-control study.

settingMultisite clinical setting. PATIENTS OR OTHER

participantsAn overlapping sample of 99 participants (age = 19.0 ± 1.1 years) evaluated within 6 hours postconcussion, 176 participants (age = 18.9 ± 1.1 years) evaluated at 24 to 48 hours postconcussion, and 214 participants (age = 18.9 ± 1.1 years) evaluated once they were cleared to begin a return-to-play progression were included. Participants with concussion were compared with 942 control participants (age = 19.0 ± 1.0 years) who did not sustain a concussion during the study period but completed preseason baseline testing at 2 points separated by 1 year (years 1 and 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): At each time point, follow-up RTclin (ie, postconcussion or year 2) was compared with the individual year 1 preseason baseline RTclin and normative baseline data (ie, sex and sport specific). Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated to compare the sensitivity and specificity of RTclin change from baseline and norm-based cutoff scores.

resultsClinical reaction time performance declined within 6 hours (18 milliseconds, 9.2% slower than baseline). The decline persisted at 24 to 48 hours (15 milliseconds, 7.6% slower than baseline), but performance recovered by the time of return-to-play initiation. Within 6 hours, a change from baseline of 16 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (52%) and specificity (79%, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.702), whereas a norm-based cutoff score of 19 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (46%) and specificity (86%, AUC = 0.700). At 24 to 48 hours, a change from baseline of 2 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (64%) and specificity (61%, AUC = 0.666), whereas a norm-based cutoff score of 0 milliseconds maximized combined sensitivity (63%) and specificity (62%, AUC = 0.647).

conclusionsNorm-based cutoff scores can be used for interpreting RTclin scores postconcussion in collegiate athletes when individual baseline data are not available, although low sensitivity and specificity limit the use of RTclin as a stand-alone test.

Indexed as

Athletic InjuriesBrain ConcussionReaction TimeAdolescentAthletesCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsReturn to SportYoung Adultdiagnosisevaluationmanagementmild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)response time

Identifiers

PMID34375406
PMCPMC8359707

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.