What tests and measures accurately diagnose persisting post-concussive symptoms in children, adolescents and adults following sport-related concussion? A systematic review

• Published in: British journal of sports medicine 2023-06, Vol.57 (12), p.780-788
• Main Authors: Yeates, Keith Owen, Räisänen, Anu M, Premji, Zahra, Debert, Chantel T, Frémont, Pierre, Hinds, Sidney, Smirl, Jonathan D, Barlow, Karen, Davis, Gavin A, Echemendia, Ruben J, Feddermann-Demont, Nina, Fuller, Colm, Gagnon, Isabelle, Giza, Christopher C, Iverson, Grant L, Makdissi, Michael, Schneider, Kathryn J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Brain Concussion; Brain Concussion - diagnosis; Child; Cohort analysis; Concussion; Cross-Sectional Studies; Diagnosis; Full text; Humans; Injuries; International conferences; Librarians; Longitudinal Studies; Medical diagnosis; Neurobiology; Post-Concussion Syndrome - diagnosis; Prospective Studies; Review; Subject heading schemes; Systematic review; Teenagers
• ISSN: 0306-3674; 1473-0480
• DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-106657

ObjectiveTo determine what tests and measures accurately diagnose persisting post-concussive symptoms (PPCS) in children, adolescents and adults following sport-related concussion (SRC).DesignA systematic literature review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus through March 2022.Eligibility criteriaOriginal, empirical, peer-reviewed findings (cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series) published in English and focused on SRC. Studies needed to compare individuals with PPCS to a comparison group or their own baseline prior to concussion, on tests or measures potentially affected by concussion or associated with PPCS. Results: Of 3298 records screened, 26 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis, including 1016 participants with concussion and 531 in comparison groups; 7 studies involved adults, 8 involved children and adolescents and 11 spanned both age groups. No studies focused on diagnostic accuracy. Studies were heterogeneous in participant characteristics, definitions of concussion and PPCS, timing of assessment and the tests and measures examined. Some studies found differences between individuals with PPCS and comparison groups or their own pre-injury assessments, but definitive conclusions were not possible because most studies had small convenience samples, cross-sectional designs and were rated high risk of bias.ConclusionThe diagnosis of PPCS continues to rely on symptom report, preferably using standardised symptom rating scales. The existing research does not indicate that any other specific tool or measure has satisfactory accuracy for clinical diagnosis. Future research drawing on prospective, longitudinal cohort studies could help inform clinical practice.