4.3 Article

Preliminary Evidence of a Dose-Response for Continuing to Play on Recovery Time After Concussion

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEAD TRAUMA REHABILITATION
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 85-91

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000476

关键词

concussion; head injury; ImPACT; pediatric athletes; protracted recovery; risk factors; sport-related concussion

资金

  1. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [1K01DC012332-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate a dose-response relationship between continuing to play following concussion and outcomes. Participants: A total of 130 athletes (age 11-19 years). Design: Repeated-measures design comparing symptoms, neurocognitive performance, and recovery time between 52 athletes immediately removed from play (Removed), 24 who continued to play for 15 minutes or less (Short-Play), and 32 who continued to play for more than 15 minutes (Long-Play). Main Measures: Recovery was the number of days from injury to clearance. Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) measured neurocognitive outcomes and the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS) measured symptom severity. Results: Long-Play (44.09 +/- 27.01 days) took longer to recover than Short-Play (28.42 +/- 12.74 days) and Removed (18.98 +/- 13.76 days). Short-Play was 5.43 times more likely, and Long-Play 11.76 times more likely, to experience protracted recovery relative to Removed. Both Play groups had worse neurocognitive performance and higher symptom scores than Removed at days 1 to 7, with Long-Play demonstrating worse reaction time than Short-Play. At days 8 to 30, both Play groups performed worse than Removed on visual memory and visual motor speed, while only Long-Play performed worse on verbal memory and reaction time. Conclusions: Results provide initial evidence of a dose-response effect for continuing to play on recovery from concussion, highlighting the importance of removal from play.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据