| Title |
Diagnostic Utility of New SCAT5 Neurological Screen Sub-tests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine - Open, February 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40798-021-00303-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gordon Ward Fuller, John Miles, Ross Tucker, Marc Douglas, Martin Raftery, Eanna Falvey, Prabhat Mathema |
| Abstract |
The Sports Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT) is recommended to screen for concussion following head impact events in elite sport. The most recent 5th edition (SCAT5) included a 'rapid neurological screen' which introduced new subtests examining comprehension, passive neck movement, and diplopia. This study evaluated the additional diagnostic value of these new subtests. A prospective cohort study was performed in the Pro14 elite Rugby Union competition between September 2018 and January 2020. The SCAT5 was administered by the team doctor to players undergoing off-field screening for concussion during a medical room assessment. Sensitivity, specificity, false negatives, and positives were examined for SCAT5 comprehension, passive neck movement, and diplopia subtests. The reference standard was a final diagnosis of concussion, established by serial standardised clinical assessments over 48 h. Ninety-three players undergoing off-field screening for concussion were included. Sensitivity and specificity of the comprehension, passive neck movement, and diplopia subtests were 0, 8, 5% and 0, 91, 97%, respectively (concussion prevalence 63%). No players had any abnormality in comprehension. No players had abnormal passive neck movement or diplopia in the absence of abnormalities in other SCAT5 sub-components. The new SCAT5 neurological screen subtests are normal in the majority of players undergoing off-field concussion screening and appear to lack diagnostic utility over and above other SCAT5 subtests. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Japan | 1 | 13% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Librarian | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 24% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,132,105
of 24,394,820 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#333
of 542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,892
of 557,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,394,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 557,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.