Possible Lingering Effects of Multiple Past Concussions

Background. The literature on lingering or “cumulative” effects of multiple concussions is mixed. The purpose of this study was to examine whether athletes with a history of three or more concussions perform more poorly on neuropsychological testing or report more subjective symptoms during a baseline, preseason evaluation. Hypothesis. Athletes reporting three or more past concussions would perform more poorly on preseason neurocognitive testing. Study Design. Case-control study. Methods. An archival database including 786 male athletes who underwent preseason testing with a computerized battery (ImPACT) was used to select the participants. Twenty-six athletes, between the ages of 17 and 22 with a history of three or more concussions, were identified. Athletes with no history of concussion were matched, in a case-control fashion, on age, education, self-reported ADHD, school, sport, and, when possible, playing position and self-reported academic problems. Results. The two groups were compared on the four neuropsychological composite scores from ImPACT using multivariate analysis of variance followed by univariate ANOVAs. MANOVA revealed no overall significant effect. Exploratory ANOVAs were conducted using Verbal Memory, Visual Memory, Reaction Time, Processing Speed, and Postconcussion Scale composite scores as dependent variables. There was a significant effect for only the Verbal Memory composite. Conclusions. Although inconclusive, the results suggest that some athletes with multiple concussions could have lingering memory deficits

Role of biomarkers and emerging technologies in defining and assessing neurobiological recovery after sport-related concussion: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: Determine the role of fluid-based biomarkers, advanced neuroimaging, genetic testing and emerging technologies in defining and assessing neurobiological recovery after sport-related concussion (SRC). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Searches of seven databases from 1 January 2001 through 24 March 2022 using keywords and index terms relevant to concussion, sports and neurobiological recovery. Separate reviews were conducted for studies involving neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, genetic testing and emerging technologies. A standardised method and data extraction tool was used to document the study design, population, methodology and results. Reviewers also rated the risk of bias and quality of each study. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies were included if they: (1) were published in English; (2) represented original research; (3) involved human research; (4) pertained only to SRC; (5) included data involving neuroimaging (including electrophysiological testing), fluid biomarkers or genetic testing or other advanced technologies used to assess neurobiological recovery after SRC; (6) had a minimum of one data collection point within 6 months post-SRC; and (7) contained a minimum sample size of 10 participants. RESULTS: A total of 205 studies met inclusion criteria, including 81 neuroimaging, 50 fluid biomarkers, 5 genetic testing, 73 advanced technologies studies (4 studies overlapped two separate domains). Numerous studies have demonstrated the ability of neuroimaging and fluid-based biomarkers to detect the acute effects of concussion and to track neurobiological recovery after injury. Recent studies have also reported on the diagnostic and prognostic performance of emerging technologies in the assessment of SRC. In sum, the available evidence reinforces the theory that physiological recovery may persist beyond clinical recovery after SRC. The potential role of genetic testing remains unclear based on limited research. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced neuroimaging, fluid-based biomarkers, genetic testing and emerging technologies are valuable research tools for the study of SRC, but there is not sufficient evidence to recommend their use in clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164558

The Concussion Recognition Tool 5th Edition (CRT5): Background and rationale

The Concussion Recognition Tool 5 (CRT5) is the most recent revision of the Pocket Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 2 that was initially introduced by the Concussion in Sport Group in 2005. The CRT5 is designed to assist non-medically trained individuals to recognise the signs and symptoms of possible sport-related concussion and provides guidance for removing an athlete from play/sport and to seek medical attention. This paper presents the development of the CRT5 and highlights the differences between the CRT5 and prior versions of the instrument

Consensus statement on concussion in sport—the 5 th international conference on concussion in sport held in Berlin, October 2016

The 2017 Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) consensus statement is designed to build on the principles outlined in the previous statements1–4 and to develop further conceptual understanding of sport-related concussion (SRC) using an expert consensus-based approach. This document is developed for physicians and healthcare providers who are involved in athlete care, whether at a recreational, elite or professional level. While agreement exists on the principal messages conveyed by this document, the authors acknowledge that the science of SRC is evolving and therefore individual management and return-to-play decisions remain in the realm of clinical judgement. This consensus document reflects the current state of knowledge and will need to be modified as new knowledge develops. It provides an overview of issues that may be of importance to healthcare providers involved in the management of SRC. This paper should be read in conjunction with the systematic reviews and methodology paper that accompany it. First and foremost, this document is intended to guide clinical practice; however, the authors feel that it can also help form the agenda for future research relevant to SRC by identifying knowledge gaps

Consensus Statement on Concussion in Sportâ The 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport Held in Zurich, November 2012

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147044/1/pmr2255.pd

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

Implementation of the 2017 Berlin Concussion in Sport Group Consensus Statement in contact and collision sports : a joint position statement from 11 national and international sports organisations

The 2017 Berlin Concussion in Sport Group Consensus Statement provides a global summary of best practice in concussion prevention, diagnosis and management, underpinned by systematic reviews and expert consensus. Due to their different settings and rules, individual sports need to adapt concussion guidelines according to their specific regulatory environment. At the same time, consistent application of the Berlin Consensus Statement’s themes across sporting codes is likely to facilitate superior and uniform diagnosis and management, improve concussion education and highlight collaborative research opportunities. This document summarises the approaches discussed by medical representatives from the governing bodies of 10 different contact and collision sports in Dublin, Ireland in July 2017. Those sports are: American football, Australian football, basketball, cricket, equestrian sports, football/soccer, ice hockey, rugby league, rugby union and skiing. This document had been endorsed by 11 sport governing bodies/national federations at the time of being published.http://bjsm.bmj.comhj2018Sports Medicin

Consensus statement on concussion in sport-the 5th international conference on concussion in sport held in Berlin, October 2016

The 2017 Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) consensus statement is designed to build on the principles outlined in the previous statements1–4 and to develop further conceptual understanding of sport-related concussion (SRC) using an expert consensus-based approach. This document is developed for physicians and healthcare providers who are involved in athlete care, whether at a recreational, elite or professional level. While agreement exists on the principal messages conveyed by this document, the authors acknowledge that the science of SRC is evolving and therefore individual management and return-to-play decisions remain in the realm of clinical judgement. This consensus document reflects the current state of knowledge and will need to be modified as new knowledge develops. It provides an overview of issues that may be of importance to healthcare providers involved in the management of SRC. This paper should be read in conjunction with the systematic reviews and methodology paper that accompany it. First and foremost, this document is intended to guide clinical practice; however, the authors feel that it can also help form the agenda for future research relevant to SRC by identifying knowledge gaps.http://bjsm.bmj.comhj2017Sports Medicin