Targeted interventions and their effect on recovery in children, adolescents and adults who have sustained a sport-related concussion: a systematic review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objectives

We evaluated interventions to facilitate recovery in children, adolescents and adults with a sport-related concussion (SRC).

Design

Systematic review including risk of bias (modified Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network tool).

Data sources

MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, SPORTDiscus and Scopus searched until March 2022.

Study eligibility criteria

(1) Original research including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs, cohort, comparative effectiveness studies; (2) focus on SRC; (3) English; (4) peer-reviewed and (5) evaluated treatment.

Results

6533 studies were screened, 154 full texts reviewed and 13 met inclusion (10 RCTs, 1 quasi-experimental and 2 cohort studies; 1 high-quality study, 7 acceptable and 5 at high risk of bias). Interventions, comparisons, timing and outcomes varied, precluding meta-analysis. For adolescents and adults with dizziness, neck pain and/or headaches >10 days following concussion, individualised cervicovestibular rehabilitation may decrease time to return to sport compared with rest followed by gradual exertion (HR 3.91 (95% CI 1.34 to 11.34)) and when compared with a subtherapeutic intervention (HR 2.91 (95% CI 1.01 to 8.43)). For adolescents with vestibular symptoms/impairments, vestibular rehabilitation may decrease time to medical clearance (vestibular rehab group 50.2 days (95% CI 39.9 to 60.4) compared with control 58.4 (95% CI 41.7 to 75.3) days). For adolescents with persisting symptoms >30 days, active rehabilitation and collaborative care may decrease symptoms.

Conclusions

Cervicovestibular rehabilitation is recommended for adolescents and adults with dizziness, neck pain and/or headaches for >10 days. Vestibular rehabilitation (for adolescents with dizziness/vestibular impairments >5 days) and active rehabilitation and/or collaborative care (for adolescents with persisting symptoms >30 days) may be of benefit.

Related collections

Most cited references 49

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2025)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 14480 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Elie A. Akl … (2011)

This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.