ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2025
Performance of current tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury in sport: a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The monitoring and diagnosis of sports-related mild traumatic brain injury (SR-mTBI) remains a challenge. This systematic review summarises the current monitoring tools used for on-the-day assessment and diagnosis of SR-mTBI and their performance. Design: Systematic review, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies assessment. Data sources: Embase via Ovid, IEEEXplore, Medline via Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science were searched up to June 2024. Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed English-language journal articles which measured athletes using the index test within a day of injury and provided a performance measure for the method used. Studies of all designs were accepted, and no reference methods were required. Results: 2534 unique records were retrieved, with 52 reports included in the review. Participants were 76% male, when reported, and the mean injury-to-measurement time was reported in 10% of reports. 46 different methods were investigated. 38 different reference methods were used, highlighting the lack of gold standard within the field. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were the most frequent outcome metrics provided. The most frequent index test was the King-Devick (KD) test. However, there were large variations in accuracy metrics between reports for the KD test, for instance, the range of AUC: 0.51-0.92. Conclusion: Combinations of existing methods and the KD test were most accurate in assessing SR-mTBI, despite the inconsistent accuracy values related to the KD test. The absence of a gold-standard measurement hampers our ability to diagnose or monitor SR-mTBI. Further exploration of the mechanisms and time-dependent pathophysiology of SR-mTBI could result in more targeted diagnostic and monitoring techniques. The Podium Institute for Sports Medicine and Technology funded this work. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022376560.
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.