Quantifying the Diagnostic Utility of Baseline Testing in Concussion Management: An Analysis of Collegiate Athletes From the NCAA-DoD CARE Consortium Dataset

Abstract

Background:

Although preseason baseline testing is a commonly recommended part of the concussion management process, its “value-added” contribution to the diagnosis of acute concussion compared with normative reference values remains in question.

Purpose:

This research aimed to evaluate the diagnostic benefits of baseline testing in acute concussion assessment compared with normative reference values and characterize the athletes who receive the most diagnostic utility from baseline testing.

Study Design:

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

The investigators selected athletes from the National Collegiate Athletic Association—Department of Defense (NCAA-DoD) Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium with at least 2 baseline assessments and 1 concussion. Two predictive models were developed that mimic acute concussion assessment using multivariate logistic regression based on a battery of postural control, neurocognitive status, and symptom assessments. The first predictive model gives a concussion status prediction based on change scores computed using individualized baseline testing information, whereas the second model uses normative reference values. The investigators defined and computed a novel metric called the Diagnostic Utility of Baseline Testing by comparing the concussion status predicted by each of these predictive models. The Diagnostic Utility of Baseline distribution was analyzed across athlete demographic characteristics and medical history.

Results:

The study included 1081 collegiate athletes (43.9% female) with 1279 acute concussion assessments (24- to 48-hour postinjury assessments) and 1551 reference assessments (baseline and 6-month assessments). Both the baseline and normative models exhibited notably high area under the curve values of .89 and .90, respectively. Most athletes (86.7%) did not gain additional diagnostic benefits from baseline testing versus normative values. Those with Hispanic ethnicity (P = .038) or a history of psychiatric disorders (P < .001) or depression (P = .002) were more likely to be correctly identified as having acute concussion when change scores were derived from normative values instead of individualized baseline values.

Conclusion:

This study highlights that the additional diagnostic benefit of preseason baseline testing over normative data is limited for most collegiate student-athletes. Thus, normative data can be used for most collegiate student-athletes in the absence of baseline testing. Moreover, these results can inform decisions on the allocation of baseline tests in resource-limited athletic settings, emphasizing the need for targeted concussion assessment strategies based on individual characteristics.