ArticleTraffic injury prevention2026
Longitudinal assessment of post-concussion driving reaction time.
Article in Traffic injury prevention, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesConcussed patients present multiple neurocognitive and motor impairments including slowed reaction time (RT), a function essential to driving. We compared driving RT between concussed and non-concussed individuals across their concussion recovery (aim 1) and explored whether clinical concussion outcomes were correlated with driving RT uniquely in the concussion group (aim 2).
methodsWe recruited collegiate athletes (26 concussed and 23 age- and sex-matched controls) to complete the sport concussion assessment tool (SCAT5), a computerized neurocognitive test (CNS Vital Signs), and a driving simulation across 3 timepoints: ≤72 h, asymptomatic, and unrestricted medical clearance. RTs were recorded in response to 4 unanticipated driving events. CNSVS included 10 measures of cognitive function. General linear mixed models assessed interaction between group and time for aim 1 and group and concussion assessment outcome for aim 2 (α = 0.05). Pairwise comparisons with Cohen's d values were used following significant interactions and main effects.
resultsThere was a significant main effect for timepoint, such that pedestrian RT was slower at the ≤72-h timepoint relative to both the asymptomatic (p value = 0.023) and unrestricted medical clearance (p- value = 0.022). There were no other significant group-by-timepoint interaction or timepoint main effects for yellow stoplight RT (p-value range = 0.334-0.798), vehicle incursion RT (p-value range = 0.234-0.925) or vehicle cross RT (p-value range = 0.177-0.364). There was no significant group main effect (p-value range = 0.077-0.955), assessment outcome main effect (p-value range = 0.099-0.999) or interaction (p-value range = 0.103-0.998) for predicting any of the RTs, except for executive function (
conclusionThis study demonstrates that driving RT may not differ between acutely concussed and healthy individuals or may not be detected on a short, simulated drive. Current clinical concussion outcomes poorly relate to driving RT. More research is needed to determine when it is safe to return to driving post-concussion.
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.