↓ Skip to main content

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) findings in adult civilian, military, and sport-related mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI): a systematic critical review

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Imaging and Behavior, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 1,171)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
298 Mendeley
Title
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) findings in adult civilian, military, and sport-related mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI): a systematic critical review
Published in
Brain Imaging and Behavior, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11682-017-9708-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Breton Michael Asken, Steven T. DeKosky, James R. Clugston, Michael S. Jaffee, Russell M. Bauer

Abstract

This review seeks to summarize diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) studies that have evaluated structural changes attributed to the mechanisms of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in adult civilian, military, and athlete populations. Articles from 2002 to 2016 were retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar, using a Boolean search string containing the following terms: "diffusion tensor imaging", "diffusion imaging", "DTI", "white matter", "concussion", "mild traumatic brain injury", "mTBI", "traumatic brain injury", and "TBI". We added studies not identified by this method that were found via manually-searched reference lists. We identified 86 eligible studies from English-language journals using, adult, human samples. Studies were evaluated based on duration between injury and DTI assessment, categorized as acute, subacute/chronic, remote mTBI, and repetitive brain trauma considerations. Since changes in brain structure after mTBI can also be affected by other co-occurring medical and demographic factors, we also briefly review DTI studies that have addressed socioeconomic status factors (SES), major depressive disorder (MDD), and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The review describes population-specific risks and the complications of clinical versus pathophysiological outcomes of mTBI. We had anticipated that the distinct population groups (civilian, military, and athlete) would require separate consideration, and various aspects of the study characteristics supported this. In general, study results suggested widespread but inconsistent differences in white matter diffusion metrics (primarily fractional anisotropy [FA], mean diffusivity [MD], radial diffusivity [RD], and axial diffusivity [AD]) following mTBI/concussion. Inspection of study designs and results revealed potential explanations for discrepant DTI findings, such as control group variability, analytic techniques, the manner in which regional differences were reported, and the presence or absence of persistent functional disturbances. DTI research in adult mTBI would benefit from more standardized imaging and analytic approaches. We also found significant overlap in white matter abnormalities reported in mTBI with those commonly affected by SES or the presence of MDD and ADHD. We conclude that DTI is sensitive to a wide range of group differences in diffusion metrics, but that it currently lacks the specificity necessary for meaningful clinical application. Properly controlled longitudinal studies with consistent and standardized functional outcomes are needed before establishing the utility of DTI in the clinical management of mTBI and concussion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 297 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 15%
Student > Master 41 14%
Researcher 30 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 9%
Student > Bachelor 22 7%
Other 57 19%
Unknown 77 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 54 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 16%
Psychology 42 14%
Engineering 12 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Other 36 12%
Unknown 96 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2020.
All research outputs
#493,396
of 23,982,398 outputs
Outputs from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#19
of 1,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,012
of 311,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,982,398 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.