4.3 Article

Increasing Incidence of Concussion: True Epidemic or Better Recognition?

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEAD TRAUMA REHABILITATION
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages E60-E66

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000503

Keywords

administrative health databases; concussion; epidemiology; incidence; sex differences; urban rural differences

Funding

  1. Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences (ICES)
  2. Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation (ONF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To provide updated estimates of the incidence of concussion from all causes diagnosed by all physicians in a large jurisdiction, as previous studies have examined only single causes of injury or from smaller specific populations. Design: Physician Billing and National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) databases were used to identify all Ontario residents with a diagnosis of concussion (ICD-9 850.0 and ICD-10 S06.0) made by physicians between 2008 and 2016, excluding those with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Results: In total, 1 330 336 people were diagnosed with a concussion between 2008 and 2016. The annual average was 147 815, and 79% were diagnosed in the emergency department. The average annual incidence was 1153 per 100 000 residents. Incidence varied by age, sex, and geography; children younger than 5 years had the highest incidence of concussion, more than 3600 per 100 000 individuals of that age group. Males had higher incidence than females except in older than 65 years age groups. There was a Pearson correlation (+0.669) between sustaining a concussion and living in rural locations. Conclusion: The annual incidence of approximately 1.2% of the population is the highest rate of concussion ever reported thorough sampling methods and may represent a closer estimate of the true picture of concussion. Findings may inform future concussion treatment and healthcare planning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available