Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What is the physiological time to recovery after concussion? A systematic review

Open access
Kamins, Joshua, Bigler, Erin, Covassin, Tracey, Henry, Luke, Kemp, Simon, Leddy, John J, Mayer, Andrew, McCrea, Michael, Prins, Mayumi, Schneider, Kathryn J, Valovich McLeod, Tamara C, Zemek, Roger, Giza, Christopher C·2017·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Aim or objective: The aim of this study is to consolidate studies of physiological measures following sport-related concussion (SRC) to determine if a time course of postinjury altered neurobiology can be outlined. This biological time course was considered with respect to clinically relevant outcomes such as vulnerability to repeat injury and safe timing of return to physical contact risk. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, PsychINFO. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Studies were included if they reported original research on physiological or neurobiological changes after SRC. Excluded were cases series <5 subjects, reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, animal research and research not pertaining to SRC. Results: A total of 5834 articles were identified, of which 80 were included for full-text data extraction and review. Relatively few longitudinal studies exist that follow both physiological dysfunction and clinical measures to recovery. Summary/conclusions: Modalities of measuring physiological change after SRC were categorised into the following: functional MRI, diffusion tensor imaging, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, cerebral blood flow, electrophysiology, heart rate, exercise, fluid biomarkers and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Due to differences in modalities, time course, study design and outcomes, it is not possible to define a single ‘physiological time window’ for SRC recovery. Multiple studies suggest physiological dysfunction may outlast current clinical measures of recovery, supporting a buffer zone of gradually increasing activity before full contact risk. Future studies need to use generalisable populations, longitudinal designs following to physiological and clinical recovery and careful correlation of neurobiological modalities with clinical measures.

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-2016-097464

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kamins, J., Bigler, E., Covassin, T., Henry, L., Kemp, S., Leddy, J. J., Mayer, A., McCrea, M., Prins, M., Schneider, K. J., Valovich McLeod, T. C., Zemek, R., & Giza, C. C.
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-04-28
Volume
51
Issue
12
Pages
935-940
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2608296280
Cited by
382
References
3
FWCI
7.32
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

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.