Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42877479›Full record

ReviewJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports

Critical review of the foundational studies on chronic traumatic encephalopathy in American football players.

Ira R Casson, David C Viano

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. 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.

Ira R CassonPrivate Practice Neurology, Rockville Centre, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4080-3812
David C VianoProBiomechanics LLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) was first reported in American football players twenty years ago and has generated ongoing discussion in the medical/scientific community. Objective: The purposes of this paper are twofold: (1) to critically analyze the methodology and evidence presented in the foundational articles on CTE, and (2) to trace the evolution of ideas about modern CTE in the seminal articles. Methods: This narrative review critically analyzed the foundational, seminal studies on modern CTE. We selected 17 articles from the two main publishing groups to review, based upon our contemporaneous professional in depth familiarity with the subject matter and the high frequency with which the articles have been cited in the medical/scientific literature after publication. Each article was critically analyzed to determine whether the methodology and results supported the conclusions. Results: The definition of, and diagnostic criteria for, modern CTE (twenty-first century, mostly American football players) have changed between 2005 and the present. Proposed etiologies have expanded beyond head trauma to include genetic and environmental factors. The clinical features associated with CTE neuropathology have narrowed. Modern CTE can now only be diagnosed by postmortem brain neuropathology. Aspects of the methodologies employed by researchers, such as the reliance on posthumously obtained clinical information from family members of the deceased, limit the reliability of some data. The evidence reported often does not support the assertions made by authors. Conclusions: The foundational studies do not provide conclusive evidence for the acceptance of modern CTE by the medical community.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseasebrain traumachronic traumatic encephalopathyconcussionneuropathological changessports neurology

Identifiers

PMID42877479
PMCPMC13662306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.