ArticleJournal of athletic training2024
Use of Reactive Balance Assessments With Clinical Baseline Concussion Assessments in Collegiate Athletes.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute and Longitudinal Effects of Concussion on Reactive Balance in Collegiate Athletes.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2025Article
- Predicting Real-World Physical Activity in Multiple Sclerosis: An Integrated Approach Using Clinical, Sensor-Based, and Self-Reported Measures.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Relation Among Reactive Stepping and Fall-Related Psychological Factors in Multiple Sclerosis.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Instrumented Static and Reactive Balance in Collegiate Athletes: Normative Values and Minimal Detectable Change.Journal of athletic training · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextCurrent clinical concussion evaluations assess balance deficits using static or dynamic balance tasks while largely ignoring reactive balance. Including a reactive balance assessment might provide a more comprehensive concussion evaluation.
objectivesTo identify redundancy in current clinical baseline assessments of concussion and determine whether reactive balance adds unique information to these evaluations.
designCross-sectional study.
settingClinical assessment. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsA total of 279 healthy National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes. INTERVENTION(S): Two cohorts of data were collected at the beginning of the athletic season. For cohort 1 (n = 191), the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Tool, instrumented modified push and release (I-mP&R), and Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) were administered. For cohort 2 (n = 88), the I-mP&R, BESS, timed tandem gait, walking with eyes closed, and clinical reaction time were administered. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The strengths of the relationships between the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Tool cognitive indices, mP&R clinical score, instrumented measures (BESS sway; I-mP&R time to stability, latency, and step length), BESS score, timed tandem gait, walking time to completion, and clinical reaction time were characterized.
resultsThe strongest interinstrument correlation value was between single-task time to stability from the I-mP&R and clinical reaction time but was considered weak (r = 0.35, P = .001). The mP&R and I-mP&R clinical scores were weakly associated with the other assessments.
conclusionsWeak correlations between interassessment variables indicated that little redundancy was present in the current clinical evaluations. Furthermore, reactive balance represents a unique domain of function that may improve the comprehensiveness of clinical assessments.
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.