ArticleThe Physician and sportsmedicine2025
Multifaceted concussion assessment battery: sensitivity at the expense of specificity?
Article in The Physician and sportsmedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Machine Learning Model for Post-Concussion Musculoskeletal Injury Risk in Collegiate Athletes.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- A Machine Learning Model for Post-Concussion Musculoskeletal Injury Risk in Collegiate Athletes.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA multifaceted assessment battery is recommended for testing suspected concussed athletes; however, the individual tests have limitations and potentially may lead to false positive outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to psychometrically evaluate concussion assessment tools used for intercollegiate student-athletes, with a focus on the time interval between baseline and subsequent assessments.
methodsNinety-two collegiate student-athletes matched between concussion (
resultsThe sensitivity of the battery was high (78.3-95.7%), but specificity was low to moderate (6.5-52.2%) with comparison to the RCI typically performing best. The three approaches yielded AUC values between 0.51 and 0.63 which is below the discriminatory threshold (0.70) with comparison to RCI performing best. By academic year, Juniors was the only year in which the ROC exceeded the threshold (0.75). The number of tests failed did not improve any AUC values (0.51-0.69) to exceed the threshold.
conclusionsThe outcomes of this study support the premise that concussion must be evaluated using a comprehensive clinical examination including a variety of assessments to evaluate each clinical domain. Clinicians need to recognize that the multifaceted assessment battery has high sensitivity, but the overall psychometrics do not exceed the threshold for group discrimination and caution must be used in their interpretation.
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.