Evidence Hub

Beyond acute concussion assessment to office management: a systematic review informing the development of a Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool (SCOAT6) for adults and children

J. Patricios, G. Schneider, Jacqueline van Ierssel, L. Purcell, G. Davis, R. Echemendia, P. Frémont, G. Fuller et al.

British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2023

48 citations

Abstract

Objectives To systematically review the scientific literature regarding the assessment of sport-related concussion (SRC) in the subacute phase (3–30 days) and provide recommendations for developing a Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool (SCOAT6). Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science searched from 2001 to 2022. Data extracted included study design, population, definition of SRC diagnosis, outcome measure(s) and results. Eligibility criteria (1) Original research, cohort studies, case–control studies, diagnostic accuracy and case series with samples >10; (2) SRC; (3) screening/technology that assessed SRC in the subacute period and (4) low risk of bias (ROB). ROB was performed using adapted Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy classification. Results Of 9913 studies screened, 127 met inclusion, assessing 12 overlapping domains. Results were summarised narratively. Studies of acceptable (81) or high (2) quality were used to inform the SCOAT6, finding sufficient evidence for including the assessment of autonomic function, dual gait, vestibular ocular motor screening (VOMS) and mental health screening. Conclusion Current SRC tools have limited utility beyond 72 hours. Incorporation of a multimodal clinical assessment in the subacute phase of SRC may include symptom evaluation, orthostatic hypotension screen, verbal…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free