One of the main focuses in sports medicine right now is on concussions. Concussions have become a growing problem in all levels of sports. As professional sports get more competitive so do college and high school sports. Younger and younger athletes are trying to reach higher and higher levels of skill. While this seemingly elevates the level of play we see on the field, it also elevates the risk of injury, especially for younger athletes practicing more difficult skills.
Concussions testing has become a wide spread phenomenon is the world of sports. Any time you see an athlete on TV take a hard hit or have a particularly bad fall, they are taken off the field for concussion testing. These tests are attempt to make evaluating an athlete for a concussion more objective and to set a baseline for certain cognitive abilities. The most common concussion test is the ImPACT test. The test is administered online and only needs to be taken every other year for athletes 13 and older. The test assesses symptom areas for concussions such as: verbal memory, visual memory, processing speed, reaction time, and impulse control (1).
My high school started using the ImPACT test for all athletes my junior year. Having taken it, I can say that it is a long and boring assessment for seemingly random tasks. Is this really the best way to ensure athletes with concussions aren't put back on the field? Staring at the computer screen to take the test will only make any concussion that an athlete has worse for having put in the effort to diagnose it. There has to be a simpler way.
There is a newer but much simpler test called the King-Devick test. This test asks the athlete to read a few series of randomly ordered numbers horizontally across a piece of paper. There are three sets of numbers each deviating more from making easy to read vertical columns with the numbers. The athlete is timed for each set of numbers. This time can be compared for an objective result but this test also relies more on a subjective diagnosis. The King-Devick test has been found to be 92% accurate at diagnosing concussions (2). This is a high success rate for a test that takes only a couple minutes to administer.
I think we should moving more towards tests like the King-Devick test for immediate concussion prevention. The ImPACT test, while proven successful, is very long and drawn out for a mid-game check. I think its good that we have made advances in concussions testing but there is still work to be to make these tests more efficient and potentially even more effective than they are now.
References
(1) http://rethinkconcussions.upmc.com/2014/12/neurocognitive-testing/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwkd3VBRDzARIsAAdGzMBYqtsRRX0LpMU-dNmK-RgQR4c9sxfkP3E7sVWJ9MqwTC67b-WvpHEaAjzBEALw_wcB
(2) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/child-concussion-test_n_6819206.html
I didn't know there was another available test, and one that seems so much easier! I think concussion testing, if using the King-Devick test, would be more widely used because of its ease and short time requirement, allowing more concussions to be caught. Really cool stuff, great post!
ReplyDeleteTesting for concussions is extremely important with how competitive sports are, even for children. Replacing the current test with the King-Devick for quicker diagnoses is extremely interesting, but I would be curious if there are limitations based on the breadth and depth of the current ImPACT test. Improving concussion testing and treatment can clearly save lives, but preventing multiple concussions by quickly catching a new one might be even better by preventing many of the more complicated compound concussion problems. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure after all.
ReplyDeleteIt's really unfortunate how people who play football almost always get some sort of concussion/other trauma-related disorder. So many kids in high school play football today, and their young brains may face serious consequences later in life. Quick and accurate assessment of damage could save those kids from such diseases as CTE. Alternatively, there are more non-damaging sports that are just as fun and cause zero brain damage.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you, if there is a quicker test with that high of accuracy it should definitely be used for athletes. Especially because it takes much less effort from the athlete, which is beneficial if they do in fact have a concussion. It definitely seems like the better alternative.
ReplyDeletePlaying football in high school, each week I would hear a coach, trainer, or parent reiterate to speak up if you have any head or neck pain. There has been an increased importance on diagnosing concussions early because of all the new reports coming out about former NFL players dying due to head trauma. There is a diagnostic test that can be done to see how much of a compound, called CTE, is in someone's brain once they're dead. However, it's not as easy to diagnose when people are still alive so I agree with you that more research needs to be done and better assessments need to be used to improve the diagnosis of concussions.
ReplyDeleteI never knew there was a different test for concussions! I've had to take the one you formerly mentioned, and while it's effective, I agree that it is way too long and could be streamlined into a better, more efficient, and quick test. Athletes are such a special population in that they need quick testing, but accurate otherwise they risk a false positive or a false negative that can either ruin their season or deteriorate their health. Concussion protocols have come a long way, but there is so much more that can be done here, and in other areas, to help athletes preserve their body the best they can under all the stress they endure.
ReplyDelete