Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Role of advanced neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers and genetic testing in the assessment of sport-related concussion: a systematic review

Open access
McCrea, Michael, Meier, Timothy, Huber, Daniel, Ptito, Alain, Bigler, Erin, Debert, Chantel T, Manley, Geoff, Menon, David, Chen, Jen-Kai, Wall, Rachel, Schneider, Kathryn J, McAllister, Thomas·2017·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of published literature on advanced neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers and genetic testing in the assessment of sport-related concussion (SRC). Data sources: Computerised searches of Medline, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Library from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2016 were done. There were 3222 articles identified. Study selection: In addition to medical subject heading terms, a study was included if (1) published in English, (2) represented original research, (3) involved human research, (4) pertained to SRC and (5) involved data from neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers or genetic testing collected within 6 months of injury. Ninety-eight studies qualified for review (76 neuroimaging, 16 biomarkers and 6 genetic testing). Data extraction: Separate reviews were conducted for neuroimaging, biomarkers and genetic testing. A standardised data extraction tool was used to document study design, population, tests employed and key findings. Reviewers used a modified quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool to rate the risk of bias, and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to rate the overall level of evidence for each search. Data synthesis: Results from the three respective reviews are compiled in separate tables and an interpretive summary of the findings is provided. Conclusions: Advanced neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers and genetic testing are important research tools, but require further validation to determine their ultimate clinical utility in the evaluation of SRC. Future research efforts should address current gaps that limit clinical translation. Ultimately, research on neurobiological and genetic aspects of SRC is predicted to have major translational significance to evidence-based approaches to clinical management of SRC, much like applied clinical research has had over the past 20 years.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097447

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
McCrea, M., Meier, T., Huber, D., Ptito, A., Bigler, E., Debert, C. T., Manley, G., Menon, D., Chen, J.-K., Wall, R., Schneider, K. J., & McAllister, T.
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-04-28
Volume
51
Issue
12
Pages
919-929
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2609663222
Cited by
189
References
6
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Role of advanced neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers and genetic testing in the assessment of sport-related concussion: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097447
The paper
McCrea, M., Meier, T., Huber, D., Ptito, A., Bigler, E., Debert, C. T., Manley, G., Menon, D., Chen, J.-K., Wall, R., Schneider, K. J., & McAllister, T. (2017). Role of advanced neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers and genetic testing in the assessment of sport-related concussion: a systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097447

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.