ReviewNeurotrauma reports2025
Recovery from Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the Nonathletic Population: A Systematic Review.
Review in Neurotrauma reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resting-State Brain Entropy Reveals Altered Neural Dynamics and Cognitive Associations in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Longitudinal Study.Journal of neuroscience research · 2026Article
- Mild Traumatic Brain Injury as a Heterogeneous Neurological Disorder: Definition, Epidemiology, Neurobiology, and Clinical Course.Korean journal of neurotrauma · 2026Review
- Article
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
The objective of this study was to document the resolution rate of mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) symptoms at various time points in a nonathletic adult population and identify prognostic factors influencing recovery. Sixteen prospective cohort studies were included, focusing on participants aged 18-65 with acute mTBI, followed for a minimum of 1 month. The recovery criterion was the resolution of symptoms not attributable to pre-existing conditions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool, with most studies rated as moderate risk, highlighting variability in methodological rigor. Symptom resolution was reported in 49.0% to 69.5% of patients at 1 month, 40.8% to 84.4% at 3 months, 38.3% to 72.2% at 6 months, and 58.1 to 68.3% at 12 months. These findings emphasize the first 6 months as a critical period for evaluating the risk of symptom chronicity. The most commonly reported prognostic factors was baseline symptom severity, including higher intensity of symptoms such as headaches, nausea, and dizziness, as well as elevated scores on validated symptom scales. Psychiatric history, such as pre-existing anxiety or depression, was also a significant predictor of prolonged symptoms. Biomarkers, including NSE and S-100B levels, and reduced blood-derived neurotrophic factors, were associated with poorer recovery at 6 months. Demographic factors, including age, gender, and education level, showed mixed results. While some studies associated female gender, older age, and lower education with poorer recovery, others found no significant correlations. These discrepancies highlight the complexity of mTBI prognosis. Overall, more than half of patients recover within 6 months, but persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life and functional status. Identifying patients at higher risk of prolonged recovery is crucial for targeted management strategies, emphasizing the importance of individualized, evidence-based care in mTBI populations.
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.