Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39222352›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Clinician-Prioritized Measures to Use in a Remote Concussion Assessment: Delphi Study.

Keely Barnes, Heidi Sveistrup, Mark Bayley, Mary Egan, Martin Bilodeau, Michel Rathbone, Monica Taljaard, Shawn Marshall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Keely BarnesSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7371-3816
Heidi SveistrupSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7335-8121
Mark BayleyKite Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7860-9463
Mary EganSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0149-958X
Martin BilodeauSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8464-8837
Michel RathboneDivision of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9326-9903
Monica TaljaardClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3978-8961
Shawn MarshallBruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0893-6159

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is little guidance available, and no uniform assessment battery is used in either in-person or remote evaluations of people who are experiencing persistent physical symptoms post concussion. Selecting the most appropriate measures for both in-person and remote physical assessments is challenging because of the lack of expert consensus and guidance.

objectiveThis study used expert consensus processes to identify clinical measures currently used to assess 5 physical domains affected by concussion (neurological examination, cervical spine, vestibular, oculomotor, or effort) and determine the feasibility of applying the identified measures virtually.

methodsThe Delphi approach was used. In the first round, experienced clinicians were surveyed regarding using measures in concussion assessment. In the second round, clinicians reviewed information regarding the psychometric properties of all measures identified in the first round by at least 15% (9/58) of participants. In the second round, experts rank-ordered the measures from most relevant to least relevant based on their clinical experience and documented psychometric properties. A working group of 4 expert clinicians then determined the feasibility of virtually administering the final set of measures.

resultsIn total, 59 clinicians completed survey round 1 listing all measures they used to assess the physical domains affected by a concussion. The frequency counts of the 146 different measures identified were determined. Further, 33 clinicians completed the second-round survey and rank-ordered 22 measures that met the 15% cutoff criterion retained from round 1. Measures ranked first were coordination, range of motion, vestibular ocular motor screening, and smooth pursuits. These measures were feasible to administer virtually by the working group members; however, modifications for remote administration were recommended, such as adjusting the measurement method.

conclusionsClinicians ranked assessment of coordination (finger-to-nose test and rapid alternating movement test), cervical spine range of motion, vestibular ocular motor screening, and smooth pursuits as the most relevant measures under their respective domains. Based on expert opinion, these clinical measures are considered feasible to administer for concussion physical examinations in the remote context, with modifications; however, the psychometric properties have yet to be explored. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/40446.

Indexed as

Brain ConcussionDelphi TechniqueAdultFemaleHumansMaleNeurologic ExaminationPsychometricsSurveys and Questionnairesassessmentbrain injuryconcussionDelphiexaminationmeasuremeasurementmeasuresmild traumatic brain injurymobile phonemTBIremote careTBItelehealthtelemedicinetraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID39222352
PMCPMC11406108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.