ArticlePM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2026
Comparing perceptions of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) across health care disciplines.
Article in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing perceptions of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) across health care disciplines.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has received considerable media attention and is a growing concern for individuals with repeated head injuries. Studies exploring perceptions of CTE among health care professionals are sparse.
objectiveTo compare health care disciplines' perceptions of CTE and explore mediating factors.
designElectronic survey.
settingNA.
participantsKanser and colleagues (2023) originally recruited neuropsychologists (NP; n = 325) from popular neuropsychology professional email listservs. To expand responses from other disciplines, paid electronic advertisement was targeted to the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine listserv leading to the formation of two additional groups: MED (n = 92; MD, DO, MD-PhD respondents) and REHAB (n = 88; physical/speech/occupational therapists, nurses).
interventionsNA.
main outcome measuresSurvey items probing self-reported CTE familiarity, source of CTE knowledge, agreement with the proposed sequelae of repeated concussions (CTE-Stance Sequelae), view of the strength of the CTE research base (CTE-Stance Research), and view of the media's portrayal of CTE. All CTE related survey items were combined to create a CTE-Stance Total composite.
resultsMost respondents (>75%) reported being at least 'somewhat' familiar with CTE. The media was a source of knowledge for a proportion of all groups (22%-64%). Significant differences were observed across groups for CTE-Stance Total, CTE-Stance Sequelae, and CTE-Stance Research with large effect sizes (0.35 ≤ η
conclusionsSurveyed neuropsychologists, physicians, and rehabilitation providers have significantly different views of CTE and its research base. CTE knowledge source and inaccurate belief regarding the chronic cognitive effects of a single, uncomplicated concussion partially explain differences in CTE perspectives across professions. More research is needed regarding CTE knowledge and practices for discussing CTE with patients who have such concerns.
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.