Cited by 25Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesCognitive Functions and Memory

Assessment of the King-Devick® (KD) test for screening acute mTBI/concussion in warfighters

Open access
Walsh, David V., Capó-Aponte, José E., Beltran, Thomas, Cole, Wesley R., Ballard, Ashley, Dumayas, Joseph Y.·2016·Journal of the Neurological Sciences

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Department of Defense reported that 344,030 cases of traumatic brain injury (TBI) were clinically confirmed from 2000 to 2015, with mild TBI (mTBI) accounting for 82.3% of all cases. Unfortunately, warfighters with TBI are often identified only when moderate or severe head injuries have occurred, leaving more subtle mTBI cases undiagnosed. This study aims to identify and validate an eye-movement visual test for screening acute mTBI. METHODS: Two-hundred active duty military personnel were recruited to perform the King-Devick® (KD) test. Subjects were equally divided into two groups: those with diagnosed acute mTBI (≤72h) and age-matched controls. The KD test was administered twice for test-retest reliability, and the outcome measure was total cumulative time to complete each test. RESULTS: The mTBI group had approximately 36% mean slower performance time with significant differences between the groups (p<0.001) in both tests. There were significant differences between the two KD test administrations in each group, however, a strong correlation was observed between each test administration. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in KD test performance were seen between the acute mTBI and control groups. The results suggest the KD test can be utilized for screening acute mTBI. A validated and rapidly administered mTBI screening test with results that are easily interpreted by providers is essential in making return-to-duty decisions in the injured warfighter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jns.2016.09.014

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Walsh, D. V., Capó-Aponte, J. E., Beltran, T., Cole, W. R., Ballard, A., & Dumayas, J. Y.
Affiliations
  • United States Army Aeromedical Research Lab (US)
  • Womack Army Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Walsh, David V.
Venue
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
370
Pages
305-309
ISSN
0022-510X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2518777924
Cited by
25
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Neurological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command
  • Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (W81XWH-14-C-0048)
  • Geneva Foundation
  • Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
King-Devick test, mild traumatic brain injury, concussion, warfighters, test-retest reliability, return to duty, military personnel, concussion screening
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Adult, Brain Concussion, Female, Humans, Male, Military Personnel, Saccades, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Glasgow Coma Scale, Eye Movement Measurements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review