4.4 Article

Accuracy of Components of the SCAT5 and ChildSCAT5 to Identify Children with Concussion

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 278-285

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1533-1700

关键词

pediatric; concussion; assessment; diagnosis

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship, Canberra, Australia
  2. Royal Children's Hospital Foundation, Melbourne, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that both SCAT5 and ChildSCAT5 are effective in distinguishing between children with and without concussion, with the concussion group reporting a higher number and severity of symptoms compared to controls. Acceptable levels of between-group discrimination were identified for certain components of the assessment tools.
The Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (th) Edition (SCAT5) is a standardized measure of concussion. In this prospective observational study, the ability of the SCAT5 and ChildSCAT5 to differentiate between children with and without a concussion was examined. Concussed children (n=91) and controls (n=106) were recruited from an emergency department in three equal-sized age bands (5-8/9-12/13-16 years). Analysis of covariance models (adjusting for participant age) were used to analyze group differences on components of the SCAT5. On the SCAT5 and ChildSCAT5, respectively, youth with concussion reported a greater number ( d =1.47; d= 0.52 ) and severity ( d= 1.27; d= 0.72) of symptoms than controls (all p <0.001). ChildSCAT5 parent-rated number ( d =0.98) an d severity ( d =1.04) of symptoms were greater for the concussion group (all p <0.001). Acceptable levels of between-group discrimination were identified for SCAT5 symptom number (AUC=0.86) and severity (AUC=0.84) and ChildSCAT5 parent-rated symptom number (AUC=0.76) and severity (AUC=0.78). Our findings support the utility of the SCAT5 and ChildSCAT5 to accurately distinguish between children with and without a concussion.

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

4.4
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