Pandey Himadri S, Lahijanian Behshad, Schmidt Julianne D, Lynall Robert C, Broglio Steven P, McAllister Thomas W, McCrea Michael A, Pasquina Paul F, Garcia Gian-Gabriel P
H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
UGA Concussion Research Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Am J Sports Med. 2025 Jan;53(1):181-191. doi: 10.1177/03635465241296868.
Although preseason baseline testing is a commonly recommended part of the concussion management process, its "value-added" contribution to the diagnosis of acute concussion compared with normative reference values remains in question.
This research aimed to evaluate the diagnostic benefits of baseline testing in acute concussion assessment compared with normative reference values and characterize the athletes who receive the most diagnostic utility from baseline testing.
Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.
The investigators selected athletes from the National Collegiate Athletic Association-Department of Defense (NCAA-DoD) Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium with at least 2 baseline assessments and 1 concussion. Two predictive models were developed that mimic acute concussion assessment using multivariate logistic regression based on a battery of postural control, neurocognitive status, and symptom assessments. The first predictive model gives a concussion status prediction based on change scores computed using individualized baseline testing information, whereas the second model uses normative reference values. The investigators defined and computed a novel metric called the Diagnostic Utility of Baseline Testing by comparing the concussion status predicted by each of these predictive models. The Diagnostic Utility of Baseline distribution was analyzed across athlete demographic characteristics and medical history.
The study included 1081 collegiate athletes (43.9% female) with 1279 acute concussion assessments (24- to 48-hour postinjury assessments) and 1551 reference assessments (baseline and 6-month assessments). Both the baseline and normative models exhibited notably high area under the curve values of .89 and .90, respectively. Most athletes (86.7%) did not gain additional diagnostic benefits from baseline testing versus normative values. Those with Hispanic ethnicity ( = .038) or a history of psychiatric disorders ( < .001) or depression ( = .002) were more likely to be correctly identified as having acute concussion when change scores were derived from normative values instead of individualized baseline values.
This study highlights that the additional diagnostic benefit of preseason baseline testing over normative data is limited for most collegiate student-athletes. Thus, normative data can be used for most collegiate student-athletes in the absence of baseline testing. Moreover, these results can inform decisions on the allocation of baseline tests in resource-limited athletic settings, emphasizing the need for targeted concussion assessment strategies based on individual characteristics.
尽管季前基线测试是脑震荡管理流程中普遍推荐的一部分,但与标准参考值相比,其对急性脑震荡诊断的“附加”作用仍存在疑问。
本研究旨在评估与标准参考值相比,基线测试在急性脑震荡评估中的诊断益处,并描述从基线测试中获得最大诊断效用的运动员特征。
队列研究(诊断);证据水平,2级。
研究人员从美国国家大学体育协会 - 国防部(NCAA - DoD)脑震荡评估、研究与教育(CARE)联盟中选择了至少有2次基线评估和1次脑震荡的运动员。开发了两种预测模型,通过基于一系列姿势控制、神经认知状态和症状评估的多变量逻辑回归来模拟急性脑震荡评估。第一个预测模型根据使用个体化基线测试信息计算的变化分数给出脑震荡状态预测,而第二个模型使用标准参考值。研究人员通过比较这些预测模型各自预测的脑震荡状态,定义并计算了一个名为基线测试诊断效用的新指标。分析了基线测试诊断效用分布在运动员人口统计学特征和病史方面的情况。
该研究纳入了1081名大学生运动员(43.9%为女性),进行了1279次急性脑震荡评估(受伤后24至48小时评估)和1551次参考评估(基线和6个月评估)。基线模型和标准模型的曲线下面积值分别显著高达0.89和0.90。与标准值相比,大多数运动员(86.7%)没有从基线测试中获得额外的诊断益处。当变化分数从标准值而非个体化基线值得出时,那些西班牙裔(P = 0.038)、有精神疾病史(P < 0.001)或抑郁症史(P = 0.002)的运动员更有可能被正确识别为患有急性脑震荡。
本研究强调,对于大多数大学生运动员而言,季前基线测试相对于标准数据的额外诊断益处有限。因此,在没有基线测试的情况下,标准数据可用于大多数大学生运动员。此外,这些结果可为资源有限的运动环境中基线测试的分配决策提供参考,强调需要基于个体特征制定有针对性的脑震荡评估策略。