ReviewSports (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Biological Markers of Cognitive Impairments in Combat and Contact-Sport Athletes: A Systematic Review.
Review in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review investigated the direct association between biomarkers and cognitive performance in adult athletes exposed to repetitive head impacts. Searches in the APA PsycNet, PubMed, Google Scholar, CAPES, and BVSalud databases (11 April 2026) evaluated adult athletes (≥18 years) who used standardized neuropsychological tests and analyzed the association between biomarkers and cognition. Two reviewers performed selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Certainty of evidence was assessed using an adapted GRADE framework. A total of 10,480 records were identified. After removal of 697 duplicate records, they underwent screening and eligibility assessment, resulting in the inclusion of 10 studies. They showed low risk of bias, but sample imprecision reduced the certainty of evidence in 50% of cases. The cognitive domains assessed were memory, attention, processing speed, reaction time, and executive functions. Axonal biomarkers (70% of studies), inflammatory (40%), and synaptic biomarkers (10%). Eighty percent of the studies found a relationship between biological alterations and cognition. The most promising biomarkers associated with cognitive deficits are NfL and GFAP, but due to high methodological heterogeneity, imprecision of estimates (GRADE), and biases, the conclusions are provisional. Caution is recommended in clinical application until prospective studies with larger samples and active control groups confirm the findings.
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.