↓ Skip to main content

Differences in Symptom Reporting Between Males and Females at Baseline and After a Sports-Related Concussion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
11 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
171 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
395 Mendeley
Title
Differences in Symptom Reporting Between Males and Females at Baseline and After a Sports-Related Concussion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0335-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana A. Brown, Julie A. Elsass, Ashley J. Miller, Lauren E. Reed, Jennifer C. Reneker

Abstract

Concussion literature and treatment guidelines are inconclusive regarding the role of sex in symptom reporting at baseline and post-concussion. Although empirical evidence is lacking, it is generally regarded that females have a more severe symptomatic presentation than males at all time-points on the concussion spectrum. Our objective was to determine whether differences exist between males and females at baseline (pre-season/before concussion) or post-concussion for self-reported (1) prevalence of individual symptoms and (2) total symptom scores in high school and college athletes. Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies; level of evidence, 1. A computerized search of the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was performed. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed. Criteria for inclusion were (1) self-report of symptoms at any time within the concussion spectrum, including baseline and after concussion, (2) study sample included high school and/or collegiate athletes aged 12-26 years, (3) concussions occurred during participation in sport, and (4) symptom reporting was separated by sex. The Quality Assessment Tool for Cohort Studies, Q-Coh, was utilized for quality assessment. Twenty-one studies met the criteria for inclusion: seventeen had good quality and four, acceptable quality. At baseline, females had significantly higher odds than males of reporting the individual symptoms of vision/hearing problems, headache/migraine, difficulty concentrating, energy/sleep disturbances, and emotional disturbances. Post-concussion, only one symptom demonstrated significant differences between males and females, with females demonstrating lower odds of reporting confusion than males. Statistically, at baseline and post-concussion, females had significantly higher total symptom scores on the Post-Concussion Scale (PCS) and the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 2 (SCAT2), but when the standard mean difference was interpreted after back-transformation, these results were clinically insignificant. The symptomatic presentation of males and females, most notably the prevalence of specific symptoms, is very divergent. Females had higher total symptom scores at baseline and post-concussion, however, clinically this cannot be interpreted as a meaningful difference. It is possible that these differences can be explained by normal hormonal changes associated with the menstrual cycle. The implications of these findings are that symptomatic presentation during an individual female's menstrual cycle needs to be taken into consideration post-concussion when making return-to-play decisions, as returning to a completely asymptomatic level may not be a reasonable expectation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 395 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 392 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 82 21%
Student > Master 70 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 14%
Researcher 27 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 6%
Other 66 17%
Unknown 69 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 20%
Psychology 50 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 11%
Sports and Recreations 36 9%
Neuroscience 33 8%
Other 61 15%
Unknown 94 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 29 June 2021.
All research outputs
#480,887
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#453
of 2,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,819
of 265,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#9
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 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 2,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 52.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 265,631 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.