ArticleNeurotrauma reports
Cognitive Screening Tests in Concussion: Classification Agreement and Differential Symptom Sensitivity.
Article in Neurotrauma reports. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The King-Devick (KD) test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and computerized batteries are widely used to evaluate concussion, but whether different tools produce concordant results for clinical decision-making is unknown. We examined classification agreement among these tests and how symptom burden and time from injury affect concordance. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 253 concussion patients (359 visits with all three tests and concurrent Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory [NSI] scores). We assessed classification agreement (Cohen's kappa) and Spearman rank correlations, stratified by symptom burden (NSI ≤10, 11-25, >25) and time from injury, and used multivariable regression to test symptom-cognition associations while adjusting for age, sex, prior concussions, loss of consciousness, and time from injury. Results: Three-way agreement was virtually absent (Fleiss' κ = 0.002), with any agreement driven by concordance on normal results. Pairwise agreement was also slight (all κ < 0.20). The tests agreed on impairment in only 3 of 359 visits, and patients classified as normal by all three still had a mean symptom score of 19.6, with 30% reporting high symptom burden. MoCA did not significantly correlate with symptoms (r = -0.02), while KD (r = + 0.40) and Creyos (r = -0.33) did. Agreement declined with higher symptom burden. After adjustment, symptom burden independently predicted KD and Creyos performance but not MoCA. Test scores did not differ by injury mechanism. Discussion: Cognitive tests in concussion frequently disagree, regardless of mechanism. Although KD and Creyos significantly reflect symptom burden, MoCA does not. Concordance varies with symptom level, time from injury, and population. The clinical impression may shift with the choice of instrument. Cognitive tests are one input alongside physical examination and clinical judgment, not a stand-alone measure.
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.