The sensitivity and specificity of commonly implemented sideline assessment tools are generally good to very good , especially for symptom scores and cognitive evaluations performed within 48 hours of injury , and they are improved when a baseline evaluation is available for comparison .
CONTEXT The sideline assessment of concussion is challenging , given its variable presentations , the limited sensitivity and specificity of sideline assessment tools , and how the presentation of the injury evolves over time .
In addition , the diagnostic process , as well as the tools used to assess and manage concussion , continue to progress as research and what we know about concussion advance .
This paper focuses on the initial assessment on the sideline by review ing the concussion-evaluation literature , drawing from clinical experience to emphasize a st and ardized approach , and underscoring the importance of both familiarity with the athlete and clinical judgment .
OBJECTIVE To review the evidence regarding the clinical assessment of sport-related concussion on the sideline .
Additional considerations included making same-day return-to-play decisions , the sensitivity and specificity of sideline testing , and the importance of ongoing assessment and follow-up of injured athletes .
CONCLUSIONS The sideline assessment of sport-related concussion is challenging given the elusiveness and variability of presentation , reliance on athlete-reported symptoms , and the varying specificity and sensitivity values of sideline assessment tools .
In addition , the recognition of injury and assessment often occur in a time-pressured environment , requiring rapid disposition and decision making .
The “Value Added” of Neurocognitive Testing after Sports-Related Concussion
Background Neurocognitive testing has been endorsed as a “ cornerstone ’ of concussion management by recent Vienna and Prague meetings of the Concussion in Sport Group . Neurocognitive testing is important given the potential unreliability of athlete self-report after injury . Relying only on athletes'ormalities after injury . Study Design Case control study ; Level of evidence , 3 . Methods High school and college athletes with a diagnosed concussion were tested 2 days after injury . Postinjury neurocognitive performance ( Immediate Postconcussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing ) and symptom ( postconcussion symptom ) scores were compared with preinjury ( baseline ) scores and with those of an agex and education-matched noninjured athlete control group . “ Abnormal ” test performance was determined statistically with Reliable Change Index scores . Results Sixty-four percent of concussed athletes reported a significant increase in symptoms , as judged by postconcussion symptom scores , compared with preinjury baseline at 2 days after injury . Eighty-three percent of the concussed sample demonstrated significantly poorer neurocognitive test results relative to their own baseline performance . The addition of neurocognitive testing result ed in a net increase in sensitivity of 19 % . Ninety-three percent of the sample had either abnormal neurocognitive test results or a significant increase in symptoms , relative to their own baseline ; 30 % of a control group demonstrated either abnormalities in neurocognitive testing or elevated symptoms , as judged by postconcussion symptom scores . For the concussed group , use of symptom and neurocognitive test results result ed in an increased yield of 29 % overreliance on symptoms alone . In contrast , 0 % of the control group had both symptoms and abnormal neurocognitive testing . Conclusion Reliance on patients ’ self-reported symptoms after concussion is likely to result in underdiagnosis of concussion and may result in premature return to play . Neurocognitive testing increases diagnostic accuracy when used in conjunction with self-reported symptoms
The sensitivity and specificity of commonly implemented sideline assessment tools are generally good to very good , especially for symptom scores and cognitive evaluations performed within 48 hours of injury , and they are improved when a baseline evaluation is available for comparison .
CONTEXT The sideline assessment of concussion is challenging , given its variable presentations , the limited sensitivity and specificity of sideline assessment tools , and how the presentation of the injury evolves over time .
In addition , the diagnostic process , as well as the tools used to assess and manage concussion , continue to progress as research and what we know about concussion advance .
This paper focuses on the initial assessment on the sideline by review ing the concussion-evaluation literature , drawing from clinical experience to emphasize a st and ardized approach , and underscoring the importance of both familiarity with the athlete and clinical judgment .
OBJECTIVE To review the evidence regarding the clinical assessment of sport-related concussion on the sideline .
Additional considerations included making same-day return-to-play decisions , the sensitivity and specificity of sideline testing , and the importance of ongoing assessment and follow-up of injured athletes .
CONCLUSIONS The sideline assessment of sport-related concussion is challenging given the elusiveness and variability of presentation , reliance on athlete-reported symptoms , and the varying specificity and sensitivity values of sideline assessment tools .
In addition , the recognition of injury and assessment often occur in a time-pressured environment , requiring rapid disposition and decision making .