You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Review
Evidence-based approach to revising the SCAT2: introducing the SCAT3
  1. Kevin M Guskiewicz1,
  2. Johna Register-Mihalik2,
  3. Paul McCrory3,
  4. Michael McCrea4,
  5. Karen Johnston5,
  6. Michael Makdissi6,
  7. Jiří Dvořák7,
  8. Gavin Davis8,
  9. Willem Meeuwisse9
  1. 1Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Matthew Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Clinical Research Unit, Emergency Services Institute, WakeMed Health and Hospitals, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
  3. 3The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Australia
  4. 4Brain Injury Research Institute, Departments of Neurosurgery and Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA
  5. 5Neurosurgeon, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto; Concussion Management Program Athletic Edge Sports Medicine, Toronto, Canada
  6. 6The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne Brain Centre, Austin Campus, Melbourne, Australia
  7. 7FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Center, Zurich, Switzerland
  8. 8Department of Neurosurgery, Austin and Cabrini Hospitals & The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  9. 9Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Kinesiology and Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kevin M Guskiewicz, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Matthew Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8700 USA; gus{at}email.unc.edu

Abstract

The Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 2 (SCAT2), which evolved from the 2008 Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) Consensus meeting, has been widely used internationally for the past 4 years. Although the instrument is considered very practical and moderately effective for use by clinicians who manage concussion, the utility and sensitivity of a 100-point scoring system for the SCAT2 has been questioned. The 2012 CISG Consensus Meeting provided an opportunity for several of the world's leading concussion researchers and clinicians to present data and to share experiences using the SCAT2. The purpose of this report is to consider recommendations by the CISG, and to review the current literature to identify the most sensitive and reliable concussion assessment components for inclusion in a revised version—the SCAT3. Through this process, it was determined that important clinical information can be ascertained in a streamlined manner through the use of a multimodal instrument such as the SCAT3. This test battery should include an initial assessment of injury severity using the Glasgow Coma Scale, immediately followed by observing and documenting concussion signs. Once this is complete, symptom endorsement and symptom severity, neurocognitive function and balance function should be assessed in any athlete suspected of sustaining a concussion. There is no evidence to support the use of a composite/total score; however, there is good evidence to support the use of each component (scored independently) in a revised assessment tool.

  • Athletics
  • Concussion
  • Contact sports
  • Head injuries
  • Neurology

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092225

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    One of the major challenges in the medical management of concussion is that there is no single ‘gold standard’ for assessing and diagnosing the injury. At its core, concussion firmly remains a clinical diagnosis based on a combination of symptoms (somatic, cognitive and neurobehavioral), physical signs and impairment in cognitive function. To make things more complicated, the clinical features of concussion are often variable and can present in a delayed fashion following injury. Despite evolving imaging techniques (diffusion tensor imaging and functional MRI (fMRI)), concussion is still considered a functional injury, and not one that can yet be structurally identified on imaging.

    Prior to the current era, concussion severity scales utilised classical injury characteristics such as loss of consciousness (LOC) and/or post-traumatic amnesia to establish diagnosis and prognosis, but recent studies and recommendations have diminished the value in this approach.1 Instead, over the past decade, expert groups have recommended a multifaceted approach to concussion management that emphasises the use of objective assessment tools aimed at capturing the spectrum of clinical signs and symptoms, cognitive dysfunction and physical deficits.1–4 More contemporary studies have concluded that these components in the concussion evaluation are more sensitive to the injury than using any one component alone.5–8 It is essential for clinicians to fully understand the necessary components of a multifaceted concussion evaluation, both at the time of the concussion and during serial assessments, prior to making a return-to-play decision. Overlooking elements of the evaluation process may result in making a premature return-to-play decision and exposing the athlete to repeat injury or postconcussion syndrome.

    In 2001, the Concussion in Sport Group (CSIG) recommended a new paradigm of individualised assessment of recovery9 and at the 2004 meeting in Prague proposed the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT) based on expert consensus of the best measures to assess concussion available at that time.4 In part, the aim was to standardise the assessment across sports internationally. In 2008, the CISG modified this tool based on available evidence and developed two forms (1) the SCAT2—designed for medical practitioners to assess concussion in greater detail and (2) the PocketSCAT2—for lay use to assist with the sideline recognition of screening for concussion.1

    The purpose of this report was to review the current literature to identify the most sensitive and reliable concussion assessment components for inclusion in the revised version—the SCAT3. This review is focused on adult concussion and the SCAT2 tool. The paediatric SCAT3 assessment will be the subject of a separate report.

    Methods

    PubMed, MEDLINE, Psych Info and Cochrane Library databases were reviewed using the MeSH keywords ‘concussion’ combined with ‘athletics’ and refined adding the keywords ‘assessment ’, ‘balance’, ‘cognitive’, ‘symptoms’, ‘Sport Concussion Assessment Tool’ and ‘prognosis’ to yield articles relevant to updating and reviewing the components of the SCAT2.

    Search results

    The initial search terms of ‘concussion’ and ‘athletics’ yielded 1126 articles. When these terms were refined using the term ‘assessment’ the total was 254 articles. These 254 articles formed the basis of the review and were further refined by topics specific to the components of the SCAT2 including: ‘Sport Concussion Assessment Tool’ (7 articles), ‘balance’ (36 articles), ‘symptom scales’ (12 articles), ‘SAC’ (9 articles) and ‘prognosis’ (15 articles). An additional 20 articles were added through hand searching of reference lists from relevant articles and input from content experts. These articles were reviewed for application to updating and providing evidence for the SCAT 2, resulting in the 77 articles that were used in the current evidence review.

    Evidence review for components of the SCAT2

    The SCAT2 combines aspects of several previously published concussion tools into eight components designed to assess concussion symptoms (number endorsed and severity), cognition (Sideline Assessment of Concussion or SAC and Maddocks questions), balance (firm conditions of the Balance Error Scoring System or BESS), Glasgow Coma Scale (GSC) and some neurological signs (physical signs, coordination). Each of the eight components are scored and recorded. The SCAT2 total score ranges from 0 to 100 points, with lower scores indicating poorer performance (does not include the Maddocks questions or the symptom severity score). The tool is designed to be used serially after a concussion and includes a ‘score card’ designed to track the athlete's performance on each of the components (except for the Maddocks score, which pertains to initial sideline diagnosis only) over time during the recovery period. The SCAT2 embeds the SAC and modified-BESS testing within its matrix, which was felt to be important given the extensive use of these particular tools in North America and validation studies supporting their use in concussion assessment. Each component of the SCAT2 was carefully considered from both an evidence-based and practical standpoint prior to recommending its inclusion in the tool.1

    Glasgow Coma Scale

    The GSC (range 3–15) is a commonly used initial assessment score that has been widely accepted in neurosurgery, emergency medicine and acute care/trauma as a marker of the severity of head injury in adults.10–13 Because of the scored items on the scale, it is often not included in mild brain injury studies, as the very nature of a mild injury would cause a patient's GCS score to be at least 14, and in most cases 15. It is widely accepted as one of the best predictors of outcome following more moderate to severe injury and as such is appropriate for identification of more severe injury.14 ,15

    Maddocks score/questions

    The Maddocks questions are questions of orientation, particularly recall of recently acquired events. These questions have been shown to be more sensitive to concussion than standard orientation questions and can give important clinical information at the time of injury.16 The Maddocks questions are not included in the total SCAT2 score.

    Physical Signs score

    The Physical Signs score (max=2) is based on the presence of balance deficits or instability and/or LOC observed at the time of injury. There is no validation of the physical signs score being linked to deficits following concussion, with LOC alone often debated as a severity marker following concussion.17–19 However, recent studies have illustrated that LOC17 and amnesia20 may also be prognostic indicators for concussion. Balance deficits or instability are often observable in patients following concussion and the presence of these deficits may be an indicator of vestibular disruption.6 ,7 ,21 ,22 Recently, dizziness reported on field has also been associated with protracted recovery.23

    Coordination score

    The coordination score (max=1) is based on the patient's ability to perform a finger-to-nose coordination task as observed by the medical personnel scoring the SCAT2. This score provides the examiner with the ability to assess the patient's overall coordination and ability to follow instructions. Schneiders et al24 recently published a study examining three motor tasks in a sample of 172 healthy men and women aged 16–37 years. They measured time to complete five finger-to-nose repetitions, as measured on the SCAT2 and found small trial and gender effects for the finger-to-nose task. Intrarater reliability calculations made using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) demonstrated higher reliability for the finger-to-nose and tandem gait tests than for the single-leg stance tests used in this study.

    Symptom Assessment—Post Concussion Symptom Score (PCSS)

    The symptom score is comprised of a 22-item postconcussion symptom scale using a seven-point Likert scale rating. This scale allows for assessment of symptoms endorsed, along with a severity score. The scale has been used in a variety of settings to assess concussion25–27 and a graded symptom checklist is the most commonly used postconcussion assessment tool.28 This symptom scale has been shown to be reliable and valid for the assessment of both symptom presence and severity (table 1).5 ,29–34 The symptom assessment is important both initially and in serial assessments following concussion to understand the course of symptom presentation and resolution following the injury. The SCAT2 total score includes the number of symptoms endorsed, but not the severity of symptoms. The maximum symptom score included in the SCAT2 total score is 22 (which is obtained by 22 minus the number of symptoms endorsed). The symptom severity is obtained by summing the rated symptom score for each symptom (maximum score of 132).

    Standardised Assessment of Concussion

    The SAC is a short test of mental status that has been validated in several studies for use in the assessment of sport-related concussion.7 ,35–42 and has a maximum score of 30. The SAC has four major scored components included to assess orientation, immediate memory, concentration and delayed recall. The SAC is shown to be sensitive to concussion within the first 48 h following injury7 ,36 ,38 and can be easily administered on the sideline or in a clinical setting (table 1). Because of its ease of use and practicality, the SAC provides an objective measure of changes in cognitive functioning following concussion.

    Balance examination

    The balance component in the SCAT2 includes only the three firm conditions of the BESS, and not the three conditions on foam. Most of the research to date on the BESS includes all six of the original conditions. The BESS in its entirety has been studied extensively in the concussed population21 ,38 ,43–45 and has been shown to have low to high intertester and intratester reliability, depending on the source of the study.46–49 It has also been shown to be sensitive to concussion, especially when used with the first 3 days following injury (table 1).38 ,50 Future research is needed on the firm conditions alone to assess if these conditions are an adequate assessment of balance.

    Additionally, assessing balance in challenging environments (ie, ice hockey, figure skating, etc) should be further explored. Finnoff et al48 recently investigated the intra-rater and interrater reliabilities of the BESS in 30 non-concussed athletes. Intra-rater and interrater reliability ICC scores were 0.74 and 0.57, respectively, for the total BESS score and varied for individual BESS subcategories. Minimum detectable change scores of 7.3 (intra-rater) and 9.4 (interrater) were calculated for the total BESS score. The intrarater reliability ICC scores in this study were lower than those previously reported. The authors of this study concluded that total BESS score was not reliable, and that only firm single-leg, firm tandem and foam double-leg subcategories were valid when the same scorer is used, while only the firm single-leg subcategory is valid when different scorers are used.

    Schneiders et al24 also examined time in single-leg stance on firm and foam surfaces, which is similar to the single-leg component of the BESS although scored differently, and time to complete a 3 m tandem gait task, which is not included specifically as part of any formal sideline assessment tool, but can reasonably be incorporated into the sideline examination of a concussed athlete. This study identified gender and order effects for the single-leg stance and tandem gait tasks. These results also highlight the need to consider individual factors such as age and gender when interpreting postinjury test results, as well as environmental factors that can affect the reliability of test comparisons. While Schneiders et al24 found poor reliability for single-leg postural stability tests, their timed single-legged stance tests differed in scoring from the BESS, which is used more commonly in the assessment of concussion.

    A large body of literature exists to support the use of BESS testing in the evaluation of concussed athletes; however, these new reliability measures provide some evidence as to the most valid components to use postinjury.

    Factors affecting SCAT2 measures

    Although to date no studies have been conducted on the many factors that may affect the SCAT2 as a whole, various studies have addressed factors that may affect the components included in the SCAT2. Specifically, there are numerous studies suggesting that baseline rates for many of symptoms (ie, base rates) included in the checklist are relatively high among healthy, non-concussed athletes.51 ,52 In addition, factors such as gender52 dehydration53 and oral contraceptive use in women54 may play a role in symptom reports. Furthermore, mode of administration (interview vs checklist) of the symptom checklist is also a factor. As against using a concussion-symptom-specific checklist compared with just asking the athlete ‘how they feel’ will result in a higher number of symptoms endorsed.55 ,56 Clinicians should be mindful of administration mode of the checklist when considering both baseline and postinjury scores.

    Concerning balance (the firm conditions of the BESS), another body of the literature suggests that training57 fatigue,58–60 number of administrations,47 ankle injury,61 sport played62 and testing environment63 can have a significant effect on the number of errors an individual commits during this task. Schneiders et al24 also observed gender and order effects for the single-leg stance and tandem gait tasks. These results underscore the need to consider individual factors such as age and gender when interpreting postinjury test results, as well as environmental factors that can affect the reliability of test comparisons. Clinicians should be mindful of these factors prior to performing the BESS stances and consider these factors in the interpretation of the score. The SAC is not affected by external factors in as many ways as symptoms and balance. In addition, practice effects are not as prominent for the SAC as they are the BESS.64 Age may, however, affect total score on the SAC (eg, child vs adolescent vs adult results). The GSC score, because it is typically an indicator of more severe trauma, has not been studied with respect to the above variables, but due to the nature of the scale would likely not be affected. Although the physical signs score has also not been studied concerning the effects of these factors outside of concussion, LOC could occur with heat illness, and balance problems/unsteadiness may result from a variety of issues that may present in a sport setting. The coordination examination, however, would likely remain unaffected, except in the presence of an associated upper limb injury. Each of the factors mentioned may complicate the concussion assessment and medical personnel should be aware of these potential confounding factors during the evaluation and management process. ⇓

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Psychometric properties of scaled components of the SCAT2

    Setting-specific modifications to the SCAT2

    Other sports, such as rodeo and bull riding,67 have attempted to modify the SCAT2 for their specific needs. A modified Ebel procedure was employed to content validate the rodeo SCAT2. Content validation using this method includes experts agreeing on the importance of each item that comprises the rodeo SCAT. This three-stage process involved: (1) face validation by a local committee; (2) initial expert consensus measurement via distance and (3) a face-to-face discussion for items that did not originally achieve 80% consensus of the group. Experts were chosen from the Canadian Professional Rodeo Sport Medicine Team (Canada) and the Justin Sports Medicine Team (USA). Twenty-seven of a total possible 68 items achieved 80% consensus in the second stage. In the third stage, 4 of the 68 items were removed with consensus from the expert group. All remaining items achieved 80% consensus for inclusion. In summary, the rodeo SCAT is content valid and thus, appropriate for use in the sport of rodeo context or environment.

    Other authors have queried specific aspects of scoring and/or the serial assessment template.68 This paper, describing the SCOAT or ‘Sports Concussion Office Assessment Tool’, is based on the experiences of a South African sports physician group.68 The authors propose a simpler scoring system to that of the SCAT2 which would only allocate points for significant findings (eg, symptoms that are present or errors/mistakes made during the tasks). The SCOAT would also weigh symptoms on severity; include space for recording how the concussed player was managed (including prescribed medications and referrals); and include a final checklist before allowing return to play. The authors recommend the use of this modified instrument for conducting serial assessments, but conclude that it still needs to be validated for this use.

    SCAT and SCAT2 normative data studies

    Shehata et al69 published baseline values on the original SCAT for 260 healthy collegiate athletes. Of these athletes, 58.8% reported the presence of at least one symptom at baseline, and the overall mean PCSS score was 4.29. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue/low energy (37%), drowsiness (23%), neck pain (20%), difficulty concentrating (18%) and difficulty remembering (18%). Nearly 96.4% of the athletes had Standardised Assessment of Concussion immediate recall scores of 5, but only 36.9% had a delayed recall score of 5. Of the athletes, 91.6% were able to recite the months in reverse order and 51% were able to complete strings of six digits in reverse order. Gender differences were present, as well as differences between those athletes with and without prior history of concussion, for each component of the test. These results highlight the need to consider postinjury results in the context of an athlete's own baseline, as many common symptoms of concussion are non-specific and are present in healthy athletes at baseline.

    In an adolescent sporting population, Valovich-McLeod et al70 looked at baseline normative data. Interscholastic athletes were administered the SCAT2 during a preseason concussion baseline testing session. There were 1134 high school athletes (872 men and 262 women) who participated. The SCAT2 total score across all participants was 88.3±6.8 (range 58–100); skewness was –0.86±0.07 and kurtosis was 0.73±0.14. Male athletes scored significantly lower on the SCAT2 total score (p=0.03; 87.7±6.8 vs 88.7±6.8), and 9th graders (86.9±6.8) scored significantly lower than 11th (88.7±7.0) and 12th (89.0±6.6) graders (p<0.001). Athletes with a self-reported concussion history scored significantly lower on the SCAT2 total score than those with no concussion history (p<0.001; 87.0±6.8 vs 88.7±6.5). These data provide representative scores on the SCAT2 in adolescent athletes and show that male athletes, 9th graders, and those with a self-reported concussion history scored significantly lower than female athletes, upperclassmen or non-concussed peers.

    Discussion and recommendations

    Based on the available evidence and practical considerations, the SCAT2 is a useful and practical concussion assessment tool. However, several modifications should be considered for refinement and inclusion in the SCAT3. There is no evidence to support the use of a composite/total SCAT2 score (eg, 82/100); however, there is good evidence to support the use of the following components (scored independently) in a revised assessment tool.

    The order and content of the SCAT2 should be modified to include the following in the SCAT3:

    • Physical or Objective Signs: In addition to LOC and balance/instability, other objective markers may improve concussion recognition. These should include amnesia, disorientation, blank/vacant look and other visible signs of head/facial trauma. As developed and recommended by the NHL/NHLPA Concussion Working Group, 2011 (personal communication, Ruben Echemendia, Chair NHL Concussion Working Group).

    • GCS: This should be conducted immediately at the time of suspected injury to increase the likelihood of recognising moderate to severe brain injury. This need not be completed if the athlete has walked to the sideline and is clearly conscious and responsive.

    • Maddocks Questions/Score: These should be asked to assess orientation and memory at the time of injury only. This becomes less important for serial evaluations of the SCAT3.

    • Symptom Assessment—PCSS: This may be administered by the clinician or completed by the athlete, with or without parental input for the younger athletes. It is important to capture the method of recording, the number of symptoms endorsed, as well as the symptom severity, to establish a resolution pattern following the concussion.

    • SAC: No modifications are recommended to the SAC embedded in the SCAT3, but slight modifications will be made to the SAC in a child version, the ChildSCAT3 (see accompanying article).

    • Modified BESS: In addition to the three stances on a firm surface (double-leg, single-leg and tandem); adding the foam stances as indicated on the SCAT3 will improve sensitivity. In the absence of the three foam stances, adding a timed tandem gait test24 ,71 ,72 (with a pass/fail score) may improve the sensitivity of balance testing. However, more research is needed in concussed athletes to establish the efficacy of the tandem gait.

    The Concussion Advice Section should be revised to reflect recent evidence and for clarification.

    • Because research has shown that recovery time is variable, we recommend replacing, ‘It is expected that recovery will be rapid’ with ‘Recovery time is variable across individuals’.

    • Because research has recently recommended placing more emphasis on mental/cognitive rest, we recommend changing the sentence concerning rest to: ‘Rest (physically and mentally), including training or playing sports until medically cleared’.

    • Because of the emphasis on a graduated return-to-play progression, we recommend changing the sentence concerning return to play to: ‘When returning athletes to play, they should follow a stepwise medically managed program, with stages of progression’.

    Conclusions

    Our review of the literature on the brief sideline assessment tools suggests that a variety of measures should be employed following concussion to provide a more complete clinical profile for the concussed athlete. Important clinical information can be ascertained in a streamlined manner through the use of a multimodal instrument such as the SCAT3. This test battery should include an initial assessment of injury severity using the GCS, immediately followed by observing and documenting concussion signs. Once this is complete, symptom endorsement and symptom severity, neurocognitive function and balance function should be assessed in any athlete suspected of sustaining a concussion. It is recommended that these latter steps be conducted following a minimum of 15 min rest period on the sideline to avoid the influence of exertion or fatigue on the athlete's performance.

    Future research should consider the efficacy for inclusion of vision tests such as the King Devick Test73 ,74 and reaction time tests such as the clinical reaction time test.75–77 Recent studies suggest that these may be useful additions to the sideline assessment of concussion; however, the need for additional equipment may make them impractical for sideline use.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. McCrory P,
      2. Meeuwisse W,
      3. Johnston K,
      4. et al
      . Consensus statement on Concussion in Sport 3rd International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2008. Clin J Sport Med 2009;19:185–200.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Aubry M,
      2. Cantu R,
      3. Dvorak J,
      4. et al
      . Summary and agreement statement of the First International Conference on Concussion in Sport, Vienna 2001. Recommendations for the improvement of safety and health of athletes who may suffer concussive injuries. Br J Sports Med 2002;36:6–10.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Herring SA,
      2. Cantu RC,
      3. Guskiewicz KM,
      4. et al
      . Concussion (mild traumatic brain injury) and the team physician: a consensus statement—2011 update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011;43:2412–22.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. McCrory P,
      2. Johnston K,
      3. Meeuwisse W,
      4. et al
      . Summary and agreement statement of the 2nd International Conference on Concussion in Sport, Prague 2004. Br J Sports Med 2005;39:196–204.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Broglio SP,
      2. Macciocchi SN,
      3. Ferrara MS
      . Sensitivity of the concussion assessment battery. Neurosurgery 2007;60:1050–7; discussion 1057–1058.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Guskiewicz KM,
      2. Register-Mihalik JK
      . Postconcussive impairment differences across a multifaceted concussion assessment protocol. PM R 2011;3(10 Suppl 2):S445–51.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. McCrea M,
      2. Barr WB,
      3. Guskiewicz K,
      4. et al
      . Standard regression-based methods for measuring recovery after sport-related concussion. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2005;11:58–69.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Register-Mihalik JK,
      2. Guskiewicz KM,
      3. Mihalik JP,
      4. et al
      . Reliable change, sensitivity, and specificity of a multidimensional concussion assessment battery: implications for caution in clinical practice. J Head Trauma Rehabil [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182585d37
    9. ↵
      1. Aubry M,
      2. Cantu R,
      3. Dvorak J,
      4. et al
      . Summary and agreement statement of the 1st International Symposium on Concussion in Sport, Vienna 2001. Clin J Sport Med 2002;12:6–11.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Drake AI,
      2. McDonald EC,
      3. Magnus NE,
      4. et al
      . Utility of Glasgow Coma Scale-extended in symptom prediction following mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2006;20:469–75.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Ono K,
      2. Wada K,
      3. Takahara T,
      4. et al
      . Indications for computed tomography in patients with mild head injury. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2007;47:291–7; discussion 297–298.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Catroppa C,
      2. Anderson VA,
      3. Morse SA,
      4. et al
      . Outcome and predictors of functional recovery 5 years following pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI). J Pediatr Psychol 2008;33:707–18.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Cunningham J,
      2. Brison RJ,
      3. Pickett W
      . Concussive symptoms in emergency department patients diagnosed with minor head injury. J Emerg Med 2011;40:262–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Wilde EA,
      2. McCauley SR,
      3. Hunter JV,
      4. et al
      . Diffusion tensor imaging of acute mild traumatic brain injury in adolescents. Neurology 2008;70:948–55.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    15. ↵
      1. Yeates KO,
      2. Taylor HG,
      3. Rusin J,
      4. et al
      . Longitudinal trajectories of postconcussive symptoms in children with mild traumatic brain injuries and their relationship to acute clinical status. Pediatrics 2009;123:735–43.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Maddocks DL,
      2. Dicker GD,
      3. Saling MM
      . The assessment of orientation following concussion in athletes. Clin J Sport Med 1995;5:32–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. McCrea M,
      2. Guskiewicz K,
      3. Randolph C,
      4. et al
      . Incidence, clinical course, and predictors of prolonged recovery time following sport-related concussion in high school and college athletes. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2012;19:1–12.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Bazarian JJ,
      2. Wong T,
      3. Harris M,
      4. et al
      . Epidemiology and predictors of post-concussive syndrome after minor head injury in an emergency population. Brain Inj 1999;13:173–89.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Cantu RC
      . Posttraumatic retrograde and anterograde amnesia: pathophysiology and implications in grading and safe return to play. J Athl Train 2001;36:244–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Benson BW,
      2. Meeuwisse WH,
      3. Rizos J,
      4. et al
      . A prospective study of concussions among National Hockey League players during regular season games: the NHL-NHLPA Concussion Program. CMAJ 2011;183:905–11.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Register-Mihalik J,
      2. Guskiewicz KM,
      3. Mann JD,
      4. et al
      . The effects of headache on clinical measures of neurocognitive function. Clin J Sport Med 2007;17:282–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Register-Mihalik JK,
      2. Mihalik JP,
      3. Guskiewicz KM
      . Balance deficits after sports-related concussion in individuals reporting posttraumatic headache. Neurosurgery 2008;63:76–80.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Lau BC,
      2. Kontos AP,
      3. Collins MW,
      4. et al
      . Which on-field signs/symptoms predict protracted recovery from sport-related concussion among high school football players? Am J Sports Med 2011;39:2311–18.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      1. Schneiders AG,
      2. Sullivan SJ,
      3. Gray AR,
      4. et al
      . Normative values for three clinical measures of motor performance used in the neurological assessment of sports concussion. J Sci Med Sport 2010;13:196–201.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Roe C,
      2. Sveen U,
      3. Alvsaker K,
      4. et al
      . Post-concussion symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury: influence of demographic factors and injury severity in a 1-year cohort study. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:1235–43.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Covassin T,
      2. Elbin RJ,
      3. Harris W,
      4. et al
      . The role of age and sex in symptoms, neurocognitive performance, and postural stability in athletes after concussion. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:1303–12.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Covassin T,
      2. Elbin RJ III.,
      3. Larson E,
      4. et al
      . Sex and age differences in depression and baseline sport-related concussion neurocognitive performance and symptoms. Clin J Sport Med 2012;22:98–104.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Notebaert AJ,
      2. Guskiewicz KM
      . Current trends in athletic training practice for concussion assessment and management. J Athl Train 2005;40:320–5.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. McLeod TC,
      2. Leach C
      . Psychometric properties of self-report concussion scales and checklists. J Athl Train 2012;47:221–3.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Pardini J,
      2. Stump J,
      3. Lovell MR,
      4. et al
      . The post-concussion symptom scale (PCSS): a factor analysis. Br J Sports Med 2004;38:661–2.
      OpenUrl
    31. ↵
      1. Mailer BJ,
      2. Valovich-McLeod TC,
      3. Bay RC
      . Healthy youth are reliable in reporting symptoms on a graded symptom scale. J Sport Rehabil 2008;17:11–20.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Alla S,
      2. Sullivan SJ,
      3. Hale L,
      4. et al
      . Self-report scales/checklists for the measurement of concussion symptoms: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2009;43(Suppl 1):i3–12.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Lau BC,
      2. Collins MW,
      3. Lovell MR
      . Sensitivity and specificity of subacute computerized neurocognitive testing and symptom evaluation in predicting outcomes after sports-related concussion. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:1209–16.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Lovell MR,
      2. Iverson GL,
      3. Collins MW,
      4. et al
      . Measurement of symptoms following sports-related concussion: reliability and normative data for the post-concussion scale. Appl Neuropsychol 2006;13:166–74.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. McCrea M,
      2. Kelly JP,
      3. Randolph C,
      4. et al
      . Standardized assessment of concussion (SAC): on-site mental status evaluation of the athlete. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1998;13:27–35.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Barr WB,
      2. McCrea M
      . Sensitivity and specificity of standardized neurocognitive testing immediately following sports concussion. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2001;7:693–702.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. McCrea M
      . Standardized mental status testing on the sideline after sport-related concussion. J Athl Train 2001;36:274–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. McCrea M,
      2. Guskiewicz KM,
      3. Marshall SW,
      4. et al
      . Acute effects and recovery time following concussion in collegiate football players: the NCAA Concussion Study. JAMA 2003;290:2556–63.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. McLeod TC Valovich,
      2. Perrin DH,
      3. Guskiewicz KM,
      4. et al
      . Serial administration of clinical concussion assessments and learning effects in healthy young athletes. Clin J Sport Med 2004;14:287–95.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      1. McLeod TC Valovich,
      2. Barr WB,
      3. McCrea M,
      4. et al
      . Psychometric and measurement properties of concussion assessment tools in youth sports. J Athl Train 2006;41:399–408.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Naunheim RS,
      2. Matero D,
      3. Fucetola R
      . Assessment of patients with mild concussion in the emergency department. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2008;23:116–22.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Grubenhoff JA,
      2. Kirkwood M,
      3. Gao D,
      4. et al
      . Evaluation of the standardized assessment of concussion in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics 2010;126:688–95.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Riemann BL,
      2. Guskiewicz KM,
      3. Shields EW
      . Relationship between clinical and forceplate measures of postural stability. J Sport Rehabil 1999;8:71–82.
      OpenUrlWeb of Science
    44. ↵
      1. Riemann BL,
      2. KM G
      . Effects of mild head injury on postural stability as measured through clinical balance testing. J Athl Train 2000;35:19–25.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      1. Guskiewicz KM,
      2. Ross SE,
      3. Marshall SW
      . Postural stability and neuropsychological deficits after concussion in collegiate athletes. J Athl Train 2001;36:263–73.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      1. Bell DR,
      2. Guskiewicz KM,
      3. Clark MA,
      4. et al
      . Systematic review of the balance error scoring system. Sports Health 2011;3:287–95.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Broglio SP,
      2. Zhu W,
      3. Sopiarz K,
      4. et al
      . Generalizability theory analysis of balance error scoring system reliability in healthy young adults. J Athl Train 2009;44:497–502.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Finnoff JT,
      2. Peterson VJ,
      3. Hollman JH,
      4. et al
      . Intrarater and interrater reliability of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS). PM R 2009;1:50–4.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Hunt TN,
      2. Ferrara MS,
      3. Bornstein RA,
      4. et al
      . The reliability of the modified Balance Error Scoring System. Clin J Sport Med 2009;19:471–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    50. ↵
      1. Barlow M,
      2. Schlabach D,
      3. Peiffer J,
      4. et al
      . Differences in change scores and the predictive validity of three commonly used measures following concussion in the middle school and high school aged population. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2011;6:150–7.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Register-Mihalik J,
      2. Mihalik JP,
      3. Guskiewicz K
      . Assocation between previous concussion history and symptom endorsement during preseason baseline testing in high school and collegiate athletes. Sports Health 2009;1:61–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Covassin T,
      2. Swanik CB,
      3. Sachs M,
      4. et al
      . Sex differences in baseline neuropsychological function and concussion symptoms of collegiate athletes. Br J Sports Med 2006;40:923–7; discussion 927.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    53. ↵
      1. Patel AV,
      2. Mihalik JP,
      3. Notebaert AJ,
      4. et al
      . Neuropsychological performance, postural stability, and symptoms after dehydration. J Athl Train 2007;42:66–75.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Mihalik JP,
      2. Ondrak KS,
      3. Guskiewicz KM,
      4. et al
      . The effects of menstrual cycle phase on clinical measures of concussion in healthy college-aged females. J Sci Med Sport 2009;12:383–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Iverson GL,
      2. Brooks BL,
      3. Ashton VL,
      4. et al
      . Interview versus questionnaire symptom reporting in people with the postconcussion syndrome. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2010;25:23–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Krol AL,
      2. Mrazik M,
      3. Naidu D,
      4. et al
      . Assessment of symptoms in a concussion management programme: method influences outcome. Brain Inj 2011;25:1300–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    57. ↵
      1. McLeod TC,
      2. Armstrong T,
      3. Miller M,
      4. et al
      . Balance improvements in female high school basketball players after a 6-week neuromuscular-training program. J Sport Rehabil 2009;18:465–81.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    58. ↵
      1. Wilkins JC,
      2. McLeod TC Valovich,
      3. Perrin DH,
      4. et al
      . Performance on the Balance Error Scoring System decreases after fatigue. J Athl Train 2004;39:156–61.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    59. ↵
      1. Fox ZG,
      2. Mihalik JP,
      3. Blackburn JT,
      4. et al
      . Return of postural control to baseline after anaerobic and aerobic exercise protocols. J Athl Train 2008;43:456–63.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      1. Susco TM,
      2. McLeod TC Valovich,
      3. Gansneder BM,
      4. et al
      . Balance recovers within 20 minutes after exertion as measured by the Balance Error Scoring System. J Athl Train 2004;39:241–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      1. Docherty CL,
      2. McLeod TC Valovich,
      3. Shultz SJ
      . Postural control deficits in participants with functional ankle instability as measured by the balance error scoring system. Clin J Sport Med 2006;16:203–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    62. ↵
      1. Bressel E,
      2. Yonker JC,
      3. Kras J,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of static and dynamic balance in female collegiate soccer, basketball, and gymnastics athletes. J Athl Train 2007;42:42–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    63. ↵
      1. Onate JA,
      2. Beck BC,
      3. Van Lunen BL
      . On-field testing environment and balance error scoring system performance during preseason screening of healthy collegiate baseball players. J Athl Train 2007;42:446–51.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      1. Valovich TC,
      2. Perrin DH,
      3. Gansneder BM
      . Repeat administration elicits a practice effect with the Balance Error Scoring System but not with the Standardized Assessment of Concussion in high school athletes. J Athl Train 2003;38:51–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
      1. McCrea M,
      2. Kelly JP,
      3. Randolph C,
      4. et al
      . Immediate neurocognitive effects of concussion. Neurosurgery 2002;50:1032–40.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Riemann BL,
      2. Guskiewicz KM
      . Effects of mild head injury on postural stability as measured through clinical balance testing. J Athl Train 2000;35:19–25.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    67. ↵
      1. Lafave MR,
      2. Butterwick DJ,
      3. Murray RP,
      4. et al
      . Content validity of the rodeo-SCAT. Int J Sports Med 2013;34:170–5.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Patricios J,
      2. Collins R,
      3. Branfield A,
      4. et al
      . The sports concussion note: should SCAT become SCOAT? Br J Sports Med 2012;46:198–201.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    69. ↵
      1. Shehata N,
      2. Wiley JP,
      3. Richea S,
      4. et al
      . Sport concussion assessment tool: baseline values for varsity collision sport athletes. Br J Sports Med 2009;43:730–4.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    70. ↵
      1. McLeod TC Valovich,
      2. Bay RC,
      3. Lam KC,
      4. et al
      . Representative baseline values on the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 2 (SCAT2) in adolescent athletes vary by gender, grade, and concussion history. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:927–33.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    71. ↵
      1. Schneiders AG,
      2. Sullivan SJ,
      3. Kvarnstrom J,
      4. et al
      . The effect of footwear and sports-surface on dynamic neurological screening for sport-related concussion. J Sci Med Sport 2010;13:382–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Schneiders AG,
      2. Sullivan SJ,
      3. McCrory PR,
      4. et al
      . The effect of exercise on motor performance tasks used in the neurological assessment of sports-related concussion. Br J Sports Med 2008;42:1011–13.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    73. ↵
      1. Galetta KM,
      2. Barrett J,
      3. Allen M,
      4. et al
      . The King-Devick test as a determinant of head trauma and concussion in boxers and MMA fighters. Neurology 2011;76:1456–62.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    74. ↵
      1. Galetta KM,
      2. Brandes LE,
      3. Maki K,
      4. et al
      . The King-Devick test and sports-related concussion: study of a rapid visual screening tool in a collegiate cohort. J Neurol Sci 2011;309:34–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    75. ↵
      1. Eckner JT,
      2. Kutcher JS,
      3. Richardson JK
      . Between-seasons test-retest reliability of clinically measured reaction time in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes. J Athl Train 2011;46:409–14.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    76. ↵
      1. Eckner JT,
      2. Richardson JK,
      3. Kim H,
      4. et al
      . A novel clinical test of recognition reaction time in healthy adults. Psychol Assess 2012;24:249–54.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    77. ↵
      1. Eckner JT,
      2. Kutcher JS,
      3. Broglio SP,
      4. et al
      . Effect of sport-related concussion on clinically measured simple reaction time. Br J Sports Med Published Online First: 11 January 2013 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091579
    View Abstract

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All the coauthors contributed to the conceptual design and writing of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests See the supplementary online data for competing interests (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092225).

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • ▸ References to this paper are available online at http://bjsm.bmjgroup.com