Elsevier

Physical Therapy in Sport

Volume 57, September 2022, Pages 95-104
Physical Therapy in Sport

A scoping review of cervical spine evaluation in standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.07.010Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Of 82 concussion evaluation tools identified, 11 included a cervical spine evaluation component.

  • Cervical spine evaluation in the tools focused primarily on symptoms and red flag screening.

  • Just three identified concussion tools included physical evaluation of the cervical spine.

  • Established cervical spine literature can inform cervical spine evaluation in concussion.

Abstract

Background

It can be a challenge for clinicians to evaluate trauma that could represent cervical spine injury, concussion, or both. These conditions share common mechanisms of injury and symptom profiles, yet distinct aetiology and management. In the clinical evaluation of concussion, a range of standardised tools are available but the extent to which such tools include cervical spine evaluation is unclear.

Objective

To identify a variety of standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools, examine if these tools include cervical spine evaluation, and describe the characteristics of cervical spine evaluation included. To have an informed discussion about how cervical spine evaluation might best be approached after a concussion event.

Design

Scoping review.

Method

A structured literature search was performed in eight databases to identify standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools. Each tool was then reviewed for cervical spine evaluation, and the characteristics of tools including cervical spine evaluation were described.

Results

The structured search identified 82 standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools. Eleven tools included cervical spine assessment related primarily to the evaluation of red flags and symptoms, just three included physical examination.

Conclusion

Few standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools include cervical spine evaluation, and even fewer include physical examination. Cervical spine evaluation in concussion may benefit from closer alignment with established approaches to screening for clinically significant cervical spine injuries. In concussion, we advocate for an approach to cervical spine evaluation that includes screening for dangerous mechanisms of injury, neurological deficit, distracting injury and neck pain; and physical examination of neck range of motion and neck tenderness.

Introduction

Concussion is described as “… a traumatic brain injury, induced by biomechanical forces” (p.839) with signs and symptoms that cannot be explained by other issues such as cervical spine injury (McCrory et al., 2017). It presents a challenge for clinicians to evaluate trauma that could reasonably result in cervical spine injury, concussion, or both. These conditions share a common mechanism of injury, symptom profile (e.g. headaches, dizziness) and clinical presentation (Cheever, Kawata, Tierney, & Galgon, 2016; Elkin, Elliott, & Siegmund, 2016; King, McCrea, & Nelson, 2020; Leddy et al., 2015). Yet, there is a strong need to differentiate. Concussion and cervical spine dysfunction represent distinct fields each with their own evidence regarding aetiology, evaluation and management. This distinction is reflected in recommendations that the cervical spine should be considered in suspected concussion, and that this should influence management (Ellis, Leddy, & Willer, 2015; McCrory et al., 2017; Schneider, 2019; Zasler, Haider, Grzibowski, & Leddy, 2019). What is less clear is how best to consider the cervical spine when evaluating suspected or confirmed concussion.

Although the cervical spine is acknowledged as a potential source of symptoms in concussion (McCrory et al., 2017), no clear guidelines currently exist for the evaluation of the cervical spine post-concussion (Leddy et al., 2015). Clinicians are supported by evaluation tools such as the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5), an example of an internationally recognised standardised evaluation tool for suspected concussion used by health professionals. This provides guidance in evaluating sports-related concussion, supplementing rather than replacing clinical judgement. Yet the extent to which the SCAT5 supports clinicians to appropriately evaluate cervical spine injuries is unclear. Other standardised concussion evaluation tools may offer alternative approaches. It would be unreasonable to expect that tools designed for concussion evaluation should provide comprehensive cervical spine evaluation. Yet tools could be expected to offer sufficient guidance to identify clinically significant cervical spine injuries in acute settings, and identify potential cervical spine injury in non-acute settings. A summary of how a range of standardised concussion evaluation tools consider the potential for cervical spine injury in suspected concussion would offer insight into how health professionals involved in concussion care currently evaluate these conditions.

In line with a key indication for scoping reviews described by Munn et al. (2018), this review aims to identify key characteristics related to a concept: specifically, to identify the characteristics of cervical spine evaluation included in standardised concussion evaluation tools. This will inform a discussion about how cervical spine evaluation might best be approached in people with suspected or confirmed concussion.

Section snippets

Methods

A three-step process was taken to address the research question (Fig. 1). This involved: 1. A structured search strategy to identify standardised concussion evaluation tools; 2. A review of evaluation tools to check if cervical spine evaluation were included; and 3. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics of tools including cervical spine evaluation. The structured search strategy followed guidelines described by Peters et al. (2015) based on the Joanna Briggs Institute.

Results

The results of the literature search are shown in Fig. 2, in a PRISMA Flow Diagram for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2015). Duplicates were removed after screening by title. The search returned 10,126 records from which 322 items were included. A further 28 records were found with a manual search of references.

A total of 82 standardised concussion evaluation tools were identified from included articles (Table 1). A cross-reference list showing how the search identified assessment tools is

Discussion

This review identifies numerous standardised concussion evaluation tools, yet few that include cervical spine evaluation. Tools identified were diverse, reflecting the complex nature of concussion and efforts to identify a wide range of issues following a concussive event. Just 11 of 82 tools identified (13%) included a cervical spine evaluation component. This indicates that potential cervical spine injury is either not considered or is considered separately from concussion evaluation tools.

Limitations

This study focuses on identifying standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools utilised in published literature, excluding perspectives that may be found in opinion and guideline articles as well as cervical spine specific literature. The large volume of concussion related literature required substantial screening. Preliminary work indicated that narrower search terms excluded tools of interest, so a decision was made to proceed with a more comprehensive search and have a single reviewer

Conclusion

Clinicians involved in the evaluation of suspected concussion should consider how best to include evaluation of the cervical spine as part of care. Few standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools include cervical spine evaluation, and even fewer include physical examination. Cervical spine evaluation in concussion may benefit from closer alignment with established approaches to screening for clinically significant cervical spine injuries such as the Canadian C-spine Rule and NEXUS

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required prior to undertaking this review.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of competing interest

None declared by each author.

References (34)

  • J.J. Como et al.

    Practice management guidelines for identification of cervical spine injuries following trauma: Update from the eastern association for the surgery of trauma practice management guidelines committee

    Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

    (2009)
  • J.D. Corrigan et al.

    Initial reliability and validity of the Ohio State University TBI identification method

    The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation

    (2007)
  • R.J. Echemendia et al.

    What tests and measures should be added to the SCAT3 and related tests to improve their reliability, sensitivity and/or specificity in sideline concussion diagnosis? A systematic review

    British Journal of Sports Medicine

    (2017)
  • R.J. Echemendia et al.

    The concussion recognition tool 5th edition (CRT5): Background and rationale

    British Journal of Sports Medicine

    (2017)
  • R.J. Echemendia et al.

    The sport concussion assessment tool 5th edition (SCAT5): Background and rationale

    British Journal of Sports Medicine

    (2017)
  • R.J. Echemendia et al.

    The sport concussion assessment tool 5th edition (SCAT5): Background and rationale

    British Journal of Sports Medicine

    (2017)
  • B.S. Elkin et al.

    Whiplash injury or concussion? A possible biomechanical explanation for concussion symptoms in some individuals following a rear-end collision

    Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

    (2016)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text