Location
Hopwood Auditorium
Access Type
Open Access
Entry Number
71
Start Date
4-5-2023 4:00 PM
End Date
4-5-2023 4:15 PM
College
College of Health Sciences
Department
Public Health
Keywords
concussion, vestibular ocular-motor, concussion assessment tools, SCAT-5, King Devick
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the increase in sports-related concussions in the United States, there is a rising concern about concussion assessments in collegiate athletes with regard to long term vestibular ocular motor dysfunction and post-concussion syndrome.
PURPOSE: Due to varying practices in concussion diagnosis, this systematic review analyzed three concussion diagnostic instruments, The King Devick, Screening Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-5), and Vestibular Oculomotor Screening Tool (VOMS), to determine the most appropriate instrument(s) for reducing vestibular ocular-motor dysfunction and post-concussion symptoms in collegiate athletes.
METHODS: Nested Knowledge was used to identify articles from PubMed, Europe Pubmed Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Key search terms were combinations of “King Devick,” “concussion,” “athletes,” “vestibular and oculomotor reflexes,” “SCAT 5.” Articles were removed from consideration based on the following selected exclusion criteria: full text unavailable; did not include VOMS, King Devick, or SCAT-5 assessment; not a sport-related concussion; did not include college athletes; athletes were not over 18 years old,; not peer-reviewed; published before 2016.
RESULTS: A PRISMA diagram was created to report inclusion and exclusion criteria of all articles in the review. There were 398 articles identified, 45 were duplicates leaving 353 for screening. Of the 353, 101 articles were excluded based on selected exclusion criteria. Out of 252 articles sought for retrieval, 196 were not retrieved. Therefore, 56 articles were assessed for eligibility and only 16 of those articles met eligibility criteria.
CONCLUSION: Preliminary review of the literature suggests that The King Devick, Screening Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-5), and the Vestibular Ocular-Motor Screening Tool (VOMS) should not be used independently. Concussion assessment tools like the SCAT-5 and King Devick should be used in conjunction with the VOMS to limit the probability of misdiagnosing concussion and failure to identify vestibular ocular-motor dysfunction.
Faculty Mentor(s)
Dr. Rebekkah N. McLellan
Rights Statement
The right to download or print any portion of this material is granted by the copyright owner only for personal or educational use. The author/creator retains all proprietary rights, including copyright ownership. Any editing, other reproduction or other use of this material by any means requires the express written permission of the copyright owner. Except as provided above, or for any other use that is allowed by fair use (Title 17, §107 U.S.C.), you may not reproduce, republish, post, transmit or distribute any material from this web site in any physical or digital form without the permission of the copyright owner of the material.
Included in
Diagnosis Commons, Other Neuroscience and Neurobiology Commons, Other Rehabilitation and Therapy Commons, Physical Therapy Commons, Public Health Commons, Sports Medicine Commons
Evaluation of Concussion Assessment Tools for Collegiate Athletes
Hopwood Auditorium
BACKGROUND: Due to the increase in sports-related concussions in the United States, there is a rising concern about concussion assessments in collegiate athletes with regard to long term vestibular ocular motor dysfunction and post-concussion syndrome.
PURPOSE: Due to varying practices in concussion diagnosis, this systematic review analyzed three concussion diagnostic instruments, The King Devick, Screening Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-5), and Vestibular Oculomotor Screening Tool (VOMS), to determine the most appropriate instrument(s) for reducing vestibular ocular-motor dysfunction and post-concussion symptoms in collegiate athletes.
METHODS: Nested Knowledge was used to identify articles from PubMed, Europe Pubmed Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Key search terms were combinations of “King Devick,” “concussion,” “athletes,” “vestibular and oculomotor reflexes,” “SCAT 5.” Articles were removed from consideration based on the following selected exclusion criteria: full text unavailable; did not include VOMS, King Devick, or SCAT-5 assessment; not a sport-related concussion; did not include college athletes; athletes were not over 18 years old,; not peer-reviewed; published before 2016.
RESULTS: A PRISMA diagram was created to report inclusion and exclusion criteria of all articles in the review. There were 398 articles identified, 45 were duplicates leaving 353 for screening. Of the 353, 101 articles were excluded based on selected exclusion criteria. Out of 252 articles sought for retrieval, 196 were not retrieved. Therefore, 56 articles were assessed for eligibility and only 16 of those articles met eligibility criteria.
CONCLUSION: Preliminary review of the literature suggests that The King Devick, Screening Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-5), and the Vestibular Ocular-Motor Screening Tool (VOMS) should not be used independently. Concussion assessment tools like the SCAT-5 and King Devick should be used in conjunction with the VOMS to limit the probability of misdiagnosing concussion and failure to identify vestibular ocular-motor dysfunction.