Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Methodological Critique of Concussive and Non-Concussive Dual Task Walking Assessments: A Scoping Review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Methodological Critique of Concussive and Non-Concussive Dual Task Walking Assessments: A Scoping Review
Do you wish to request the book?
Methodological Critique of Concussive and Non-Concussive Dual Task Walking Assessments: A Scoping Review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Methodological Critique of Concussive and Non-Concussive Dual Task Walking Assessments: A Scoping Review
2023
Overview
Objective: To understand the methodological approaches taken by various research groups and determine the kinematic variables that could consistently and reliably differentiate between concussed and non-concussed individuals. Methods: MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL Complete via EBSCO, EBSCOhost, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus were searched from inception until 31 December 2021, using key terms related to concussion, mild traumatic brain injury, gait, cognition and dual task. Studies that reported spatiotemporal kinematic outcomes were included. Data were extracted using a customised spreadsheet, including detailed information on participant characteristics, assessment protocols, equipment used, and outcomes. Results: Twenty-three studies involving 1030 participants met the inclusion criteria. Ten outcome measures were reported across these articles. Some metrics such as gait velocity and stride length may be promising but are limited by the status of the current research; the majority of the reported variables were not sensitive enough across technologies to consistently differentiate between concussed and non-concussed individuals. Understanding variable sensitivity was made more difficult given the absence of any reporting of reliability of the protocols and variables in the respective studies. Conclusion: Given the current status of the literature and the methodologies reviewed, there would seem little consensus on which gait parameters are best to determine return to play readiness after concussion. There is potential in this area for such technologies and protocols to be utilised as a tool for identifying and monitoring concussion; however, improving understanding of the variability and validity of technologies and protocols underpins the suggested directions of future research. Inertial measurement units appear to be the most promising technology in this aspect and should guide the focus of future research. Impact: Results of this study may have an impact on what technology is chosen and may be utilised to assist with concussion diagnosis and return to play protocols.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
