Search

Background: After a sport-related concussion (SRC), the risk for lower extremity injury is approximately 2 times greater, and the risk for another SRC may be as much as 3 to 5 times greater. Purpose: To assess the predictive validity of screening methods for identification of individual athletes who possess an elevated risk of SRC. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Metrics derived from a smartphone flanker test software application and self-ratings of both musculoskeletal function and overall wellness were acquired from American high school and college football players before study participation. Occurrences of core or lower extremity injury (CLEI) and SRC were documented for all practice sessions and games for 1 season. Receiver operating characteristic and logistic regression analyses were used to identify variables that provided the greatest predictive accuracy for CLEI or SRC occurrence. Results: Overall, there were 87 high school and 74 American college football players included in this study. At least 1 CLEI was sustained by 45% (39/87) of high school players and 55% (41/74) of college players. Predictors of CLEI included the flanker test conflict effect ≥69 milliseconds (odds ratio [OR], 2.12; 90% CI, 1.24-3.62) and a self-reported lifetime history of SRC (OR, 1.70; 90% CI, 0.90-3.23). Of players with neither risk factor, only 38% (29/77) sustained CLEI compared with 61% (51/84) of players with 1 or both of the risk factors (OR, 2.56; 90% CI, 1.50-4.36). SRC was sustained by 7 high school players and 3 college players. Predictors of SRC included the Overall Wellness Index score ≤78 (OR, 9.83; 90% CI, 3.17-30.50), number of postconcussion symptoms ≥4 (OR, 8.35; 90% CI, 2.71-25.72), the Sport Fitness Index score ≤78 (OR, 5.16; 90% CI, 1.70-15.65), history of SRC (OR, 4.03; 90% CI, 1.35-12.03), and the flanker test inverse efficiency ratio ≥1.7 (OR, 3.19; 90% CI, 1.08-9.47). Conclusion: Survey responses and smartphone flanker test metrics predicted greater injury incidence among individual football players classified as high-risk compared with that for players with a low-risk profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]