Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jun 3;7(6):e2416223. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.16223.
The Sports Concussion Assessment Tool-5 (SCAT5) has been recommended for concussion evaluation and utilizes both a subjective reported symptom grading scale and objective measures of concussion including a cognitive evaluation: the Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC). The SAC includes testing for orientation, immediate memory, concentration, and delayed recall; a 10-word list is used to assess immediate memory and delayed recall.
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of components of the SCAT5 and to provide a framework for clinical interpretation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective case-control study of National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes from any sport was conducted from July 2020 to December 2022 at 4 universities. Athletes completed baseline SCAT5 testing using the 10-word list. When an athlete presented acutely with suspected concussion (sideline or within 2 days), the tests were repeated. If a concussion was diagnosed, a control athlete underwent the same tests. Controls were identified and matched on comorbid conditions, sex and gender, sport, season, and baseline scores. Data analysis was conducted from August to October 2023.
The primary outcomes were area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and test-retest reliability of the symptom score; symptom severity score; the total SAC score; and the orientation, immediate memory, concentration, and delayed memory subcomponent scores on the SCAT5 compared with clinical diagnosis of concussion.
Baseline and postinjury data were collected on 92 athletes with concussion and 92 matched control athletes (96 men [52%] and 88 women [48%]; 110 who played a sport other than football [59%]). Diagnostic utility was considered excellent for symptom score (AUC, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and symptom severity score (AUC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97). An increase of 2 points on the symptom score was associated with a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 78%-92%), specificity of 80% (95% CI, 70%-87I%), and positive predictive value of 81% (95% CI, 72%-88%). The total SAC score had poor to fair diagnostic utility (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.77); however, 41 athletes with concussion (45%) had a total SAC score at or above their baseline score (ie, within normal limits). The diagnostic utility was poor to fair for immediate memory (AUC, 0.68, 95%CI, 0.61-0.75) and delayed recall (AUC, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77) and not useful for orientation (AUC, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.56) and concentration (AUC, 0.52 95% CI, 0.44-0.61). Test-retest reliability was fair for total SAC and poor for immediate memory and delayed recall, orientation, and concentration.
In this case-control study of the diagnostic accuracy of reported symptoms and the SAC, reported symptoms were the most accurate indicator of concussion while the 10-word SAC had limited sensitivity. These findings suggest that understanding the properties of the SAC is important when making the diagnosis of concussion.
《运动性脑震荡评估工具-5 版》(SCAT5)已被推荐用于脑震荡评估,它结合了主观报告的症状分级量表和包括认知评估在内的客观脑震荡指标:标准化脑震荡评估(SAC)。SAC 包括定向、即刻记忆、注意力和延迟回忆测试;使用 10 个单词列表评估即刻记忆和延迟回忆。
确定 SCAT5 各组成部分的诊断准确性,并为临床解释提供框架。
设计、地点和参与者:这是一项针对来自任何运动的全国大学生体育协会一级运动员的前瞻性病例对照研究,于 2020 年 7 月至 2022 年 12 月在 4 所大学进行。运动员使用 10 个单词列表进行基线 SCAT5 测试。当运动员出现疑似脑震荡时(在现场或 2 天内),会重复进行测试。如果诊断出脑震荡,则让一名对照运动员接受相同的测试。对照组根据合并症、性别和运动、季节和基线分数进行匹配。数据分析于 2023 年 8 月至 10 月进行。
主要结果是症状评分、症状严重程度评分、SAC 总分以及 SCAT5 的定向、即刻记忆、注意力和延迟记忆子成分评分的受试者工作特征曲线(AUC)下面积、敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值以及与临床脑震荡诊断的测试-再测试可靠性。
共纳入 92 名脑震荡运动员和 92 名匹配对照运动员(96 名男性[52%]和 88 名女性[48%];110 名从事非足球运动的运动员[59%])的基线和损伤后数据。症状评分(AUC,0.93;95%CI,0.89-0.96)和症状严重程度评分(AUC,0.94;95%CI,0.90-0.97)的诊断效能被认为非常好。症状评分增加 2 分与敏感性 86%(95%CI,78%-92%)、特异性 80%(95%CI,70%-87%)和阳性预测值 81%(95%CI,72%-88%)相关。SAC 总分的诊断效能为差至中等(AUC,0.70;95%CI,0.63-0.77);然而,41 名(45%)脑震荡运动员的 SAC 总分等于或高于其基线(即正常范围内)。即刻记忆(AUC,0.68,95%CI,0.61-0.75)和延迟回忆(AUC,0.69;95%CI,0.62-0.77)的诊断效能差至中等,而定向(AUC,0.49;95%CI,0.43-0.56)和注意力(AUC,0.52;95%CI,0.44-0.61)的诊断效能没有用处。SAC 总分的测试-再测试可靠性为中等,即刻记忆和延迟回忆、定向和注意力的测试-再测试可靠性为差。
在这项关于报告症状和 SAC 诊断准确性的病例对照研究中,报告症状是脑震荡最准确的指标,而 10 个单词的 SAC 敏感性有限。这些发现表明,在做出脑震荡诊断时,了解 SAC 的特性很重要。