Systematic Review of Biomarker Prognostic Studies for Post-Concussion Symptoms

A 2016 systematic review analyzed 36 cohort studies involving 2,812 patients to evaluate the prognostic value of serum protein biomarkers for post-concussion symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury. The review, conducted by Eric Mercier, extracted data on patient characteristics, exclusion criteria, and outcome measures from studies published up to October 2016. The pooled mean age of included patients was 39.3 years, and follow-up periods ranged from 7 days to 5 years.

Use Cases

• Analyze the relationship between patient exclusion criteria (e.g., advanced age, psychiatric disorders) and reported prognostic findings across the 36 studies.
• Assess the consistency of mild traumatic brain injury definitions and their impact on the reported prognostic value of serum biomarkers.
• Examine the frequency of post-concussion syndrome as an outcome measure, particularly using the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire reported in 50% of studies.
• Investigate the sample size distribution across studies, which enrolled between 7 and 311 patients with a median of 89.
• Evaluate the temporal coverage of follow-up assessments, which ranged from 7 days to 5 years after injury.

Strengths

• Systematic methodology covering 23,298 citations and 166 reviewed manuscripts for comprehensive evidence synthesis.
• Provides aggregated data from 36 cohort studies encompassing 2,812 total patients.
• Reports specific, quantifiable details such as a pooled mean patient age of 39.3 years and the number of studies using specific exclusion criteria.

Limitations

• The underlying patient-level data from the 36 original studies is not included, limiting direct analysis.
• Studies exhibited significant heterogeneity in patient populations and mTBI definitions, limiting generalizability of pooled findings.
• The literature search concluded in October 2016, so the evidence does not include more recent research.

Provenance

Source

Dryad digital repository.

Collection Method

Systematic review of literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycBITE, and PsycINFO.

Time Range

Literature reviewed up to October 2016.

Freshness

Last updated in June 2020, based on a literature review current up to October 2016.