Evaluating the methodological quality of sports neuropsychology concussion research: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Sports-related concussion is a frequently-occurring, serious neurological event that can produce a spectrum of potentially debilitating primary and secondary problems. Many investigators-particularly neuropsychologists-have focused their efforts on identifying cognitive changes that accompany such injuries. As such, the present review evaluated the methodological quality of neuropsychological sports-related concussion research using a comprehensive, systematic method. RESEARCH DESIGN: Of 349 studies initially selected by search criteria, a total of 43 studies were evaluated using a Cochrane-style review format. RESEARCH METHODS: Studies were assigned a Level of Evidence using the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (CEMB) framework. Relevant information related to the methods of each study were extracted and rated for methodological quality using a standardized form-based evaluation tool. RESULTS: The review revealed heterogeneity among the studies in terms of research design, as well as a number of methodological weaknesses and inconsistencies. CONCLUSION: Despite the proliferation of neuropsychological research on sports-related concussion over the past decade, the methodological quality of studies appears to be highly variable, with many lacking proper scientific rigour. Future research in this area needs to be carefully controlled, repeatable and generalizable, which will contribute to developing practical, evidence-based guidelines for concussion management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.123 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".