MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380574907 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-106815

When should an athlete retire or discontinue participating in contact or collision sports following sport-related concussion? A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4380574907 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Makdissi, M. Critchley, Robert C. Cantu, Jeffrey G. Caron, Gavin A Davis, Ruben J. Echemendía, Pierre Frémont, Alix Hayden, Stanley A. Herring, Sidney R. Hinds, Barry D. Jordan, Simon Kemp, Mike McNamee, David Maddocks, Shinji Nagahiro, Jon Patricios, Margot Putukian, Michael S. Turner, Stacy Sick, Kathryn Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionCINAHLMedicinePsycINFOInjury preventionPoison controlPhysical therapyMEDLINEAthletesNeurocognitivePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryCognitionEmergency medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the scientific literature regarding factors to consider when providing advice or guidance to athletes about retirement from contact or collision sport following sport-related concussion (SRC), and to define contraindications to children/adolescent athletes entering or continuing with contact or collision sports after SRC. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, SPORTSDiscus, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched systematically. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were (1) original research, (2) reported on SRC as the primary source of injury, (3) evaluated the history, clinical assessment and/or investigation of findings that may preclude participation in sport and (4) evaluated mood disturbance and/or neurocognitive deficits, evidence of structural brain injury or risk factors for increased risk of subsequent SRC or prolonged recovery. RESULTS: Of 4355 articles identified, 93 met the inclusion criteria. None of the included articles directly examined retirement and/or discontinuation from contact or collision sport. Included studies examined factors associated with increased risk of recurrent SRC or prolonged recovery following SRC. In general, these were low-quality cohort studies with heterogeneous results and moderate risk of bias. Higher number and/or severity of symptoms at presentation, sleep disturbance and symptom reproduction with Vestibular Ocular Motor Screen testing were associated with prolonged recovery and history of previous concussion was associated with a risk of further SRC. CONCLUSION: No evidence was identified to support the inclusion of any patient-specific, injury-specific or other factors (eg, imaging findings) as absolute indications for retirement or discontinued participation in contact or collision sport following SRC. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022155121.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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