MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963198254 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-100164

Concussed athletes walk slower than non-concussed athletes during cognitive-motor dual-task assessments but not during single-task assessments 2 months after sports concussion: a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data

2019· review· en· W2963198254 on OpenAlexaff
Fionn Büttner, David R. Howell, Clare L. Ardern, Cailbhe Doherty, Catherine Blake, John Ryan, Robert D. Catena, Li‐Shan Chou, Peter C. Fino, Coralie Rochefort, Heidi Sveistrup, Tonya M. Parker, Eamonn Delahunt

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersIrish Research Council
KeywordsConcussionPsycINFOPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMeta-analysisAthletesCINAHLSystematic reviewPhysical therapyCognitionPoison controlMEDLINEObservational studyPsychological interventionMedicinePsychologyInjury preventionPsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether individuals who sustained a sports concussion would exhibit persistent impairments in gait and quiet standing compared to non-injured controls during a dual-task assessment . DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD). DATA SOURCES: The search strategy was applied across seven electronic bibliographic and grey literature databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDISCUS, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and Web of Science, from database inception until June 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if; individuals with a sports concussion and non-injured controls were included as participants; a steady-state walking or static postural balance task was used as the primary motor task; dual-task performance was assessed with the addition of a secondary cognitive task; spatiotemporal, kinematic or kinetic outcome variables were reported, and; included studies comprised an observational study design with case-control matching. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Our review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses-IPD Statement. We implemented the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomised Studies to undertake an outcome-level risk of bias assessment using a domain-based tool. Study-level data were synthesised in one of three tiers depending on the availability and quality of data: (1) homogeneous IPD; (2) heterogeneous IPD and (3) aggregate data for inclusion in a descriptive synthesis. IPD were aggregated using a 'one-stage', random-effects model. RESULTS: =10.3; df=4; p=0.036; mean difference -0.0039 m; 95% CI: -0.0075 to -0.0004) than controls when evaluated using a dual-task assessment up to 2 months following concussion. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS: Our IPD evidence synthesis identifies that, when evaluated using a dual-task assessment, individuals who had incurred a sports concussion exhibited impairments in gait that persisted beyond reported standard clinical recovery timelines of 7-10 days. Dual-task assessment (with motion capture) may be a useful clinical assessment to evaluate recovery after sports concussion. PROTOCOL PRE-REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO CRD42017064861.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.032
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207