Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 755

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Brief Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) Assessment to Evaluate Concussions: Preliminary Findings

Open access
Mucha, Anne, Collins, Michael W., Elbin, R.J., Furman, Joseph M., Troutman-Enseki, Cara, DeWolf, Ryan M., Marchetti, Greg, Kontos, Anthony P.·2014·The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Background: Vestibular and ocular motor impairments and symptoms have been documented in patients with sport-related concussions. However, there is no current brief clinical screen to assess and monitor these issues. Purpose: To describe and provide initial data for the internal consistency and validity of a brief clinical screening tool for vestibular and ocular motor impairments and symptoms after sport-related concussions. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Sixty-four patients, aged 13.9 ± 2.5 years and seen approximately 5.5 ± 4.0 days after a sport-related concussion, and 78 controls were administered the Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) assessment, which included 5 domains: (1) smooth pursuit, (2) horizontal and vertical saccades, (3) near point of convergence (NPC) distance, (4) horizontal vestibular ocular reflex (VOR), and (5) visual motion sensitivity (VMS). Participants were also administered the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS). Results: Sixty-one percent of patients reported symptom provocation after at least 1 VOMS item. All VOMS items were positively correlated to the PCSS total symptom score. The VOR (odds ratio [OR], 3.89; P < .001) and VMS (OR, 3.37; P < .01) components of the VOMS were most predictive of being in the concussed group. An NPC distance ≥5 cm and any VOMS item symptom score ≥2 resulted in an increase in the probability of correctly identifying concussed patients of 38% and 50%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curves supported a model including the VOR, VMS, NPC distance, and ln(age) that resulted in a high predicted probability (area under the curve = 0.89) for identifying concussed patients. Conclusion: The VOMS demonstrated internal consistency as well as sensitivity in identifying patients with concussions. The current findings provide preliminary support for the utility of the VOMS as a brief vestibular/ocular motor screen after sport-related concussions. The VOMS may augment current assessment tools and may serve as a single component of a comprehensive approach to the assessment of concussions.

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 · 10.1177/0363546514543775

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 755

Metadata

Authors
Mucha, A., Collins, M. W., Elbin, R. J., Furman, J. M., Troutman-Enseki, C., DeWolf, R. M., Marchetti, G., & Kontos, A. P.
Venue
The American Journal of Sports Medicine
Published
2014-08-08
Volume
42
Issue
10
Pages
2479-2486
ISSN
  • 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3365
OpenAlex
W2169380683
Cited by
755
References
1
FWCI
23.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.