Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41918927›Full record

ArticleSouth African journal of sports medicine2026

Athletes' optimal brain care at risk: Should vestibular-ocular motor screening replace established neurocognitive protocols?

A B Shuttleworth-Edwards, V J Whitefield-Alexander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in South African journal of sports medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A B Shuttleworth-EdwardsDepartment of Psychology, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9880-5736
V J Whitefield-AlexanderDepartment of Psychology, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1416-3584

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent recommendations in South Africa propose replacing validated neurocognitive baseline and post-injury assessment with NeuroFlex, a vestibular-ocular motor test, as part of a proposed new paradigm in concussion management. This commentary examines the clinical, regulatory, and ethical implications of excluding neurocognitive testing and removing neuropsychologist oversight from concussion protocols. Available evidence indicates that NeuroFlex does not currently hold FDA clearance and lacks validation for concussion identification. In contrast, established platforms such as ImPACT and Sway Medical possess FDA clearance and robust peer-reviewed support for concussion assessment. Neuropsychologists play a critical role in interpreting cognitive data, guiding academic and return-to-play decisions, and monitoring longitudinal cognitive health through annual baseline testing, functions not replaced by vestibular-ocular motor measures. Our evidence-based recommendations advocate routine inclusion of post-injury neurocognitive assessment with neuropsychologist application, preferably including baseline evaluation; optional research-based use of Neuroflex in conjunction with cognitive testing; and transparent, scientifically informed consent for all protocol changes.

Indexed as

neurocognitive testingsports concussionvestibular-ocular motor test

Identifiers

PMID41918927
PMCPMC13034980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.