MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410220298 · doi:10.3171/2025.1.peds24482

Return-to-learn following sport-related concussion: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4410220298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony E. Bishay, Ousman Jallow, Jacob Jo, Kristen L. Williams, Eunyoung Hong, Jackson H. Allen, Scott L. Zuckerman, Douglas P. Terry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionCINAHLPsychological interventionAthletesMedicineSystematic reviewAnxietyMEDLINEPsychologyPhysical therapyPoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Return-to-learn (RTL) recommendations and management protocols for athletes after sport-related concussion (SRC) remain heterogeneous. With respect to academics after SRC, the current systematic review evaluated 3 outcome measures in each included study: 1) RTL definition, 2) RTL duration, and 3) factors associated with longer RTL. METHODS: Studies published before December 2022 that addressed RTL after an SRC were identified via a compressive literature search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Educational Resources Information Center, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed databases. Studies solely examining nonsport-related concussion/traumatic brain injury studies were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Criteria and the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for risk of bias. For each study included, the design, participants, interventions, outcomes, results, and conclusions were extracted. RESULTS: Of 1838 studies identified, 21 met the inclusion criteria. These studies represented 8475 athletes (aged 5-27 years) who sustained an SRC. A total of 17/21 (81%) provided an RTL definition. Of the studies that defined RTL as any RTL, the median (range) was 5 (2.5-35.3) days, while the median (range) of those that defined RTL as full RTL without accommodations was 17.5 (3-49) days. Female gender (7/9 studies) and initial symptom severity (3/3 studies) were consistently associated with delayed RTL. Single studies identified anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and integrated performance management as potential factors for delayed RTL. Age (0/5 studies), concussion history (2/6), depression history (0/1), migraine history (0/2), learning disability (0/1), school type (public vs private) (0/2), and early air travel after SRC (0/1) did not appear to have consistent effects on RTL. CONCLUSIONS: Across 21 primary studies, RTL definitions varied greatly, and similarly, a wide range of days to RTL was seen at 3-35 days. Female gender and initial symptom severity were most consistently associated with prolonged RTL. Certain factors such as a history of ADHD/anxiety showed potential effects but require further investigation. Management guidelines should consider these findings while recognizing the need for more comprehensive research to confirm and quantify the impact of various factors on RTL duration.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207