Search

To examine the relationships and latent factors within the Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time (StART), and between StART and current clinical assessments.Cross-sectional study.Clinical medicine facility.Eighty-nine healthy collegiate student-athletes (63% male, age: 19.5 ± 0.9 years, 28% ≥1 concussion history).Student-athletes completed StART and clinical assessments during preinjury testing.Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time consisted of 3 conditions (standing, single-leg balance, cutting) under 2 cognitive states (single task and dual task) for 3 trials each condition. Clinical assessments were the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT) symptom checklist, Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC), tandem gait (single task and dual task), and Immediate PostConcussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). We used Pearson- r correlation coefficients and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine relationships and latent factors between StART and clinical assessments.Null to moderate correlations presented among the StART outcomes (r range: 0.06-0.70), and null to small correlations between StART and clinical assessments (r range: -0.16 to 0.34). The three-factor EFA for solely StART explained 70.6% total variance: functional movement (cutting), static dual-task (standing and single-leg balance), and static single task (standing and single-leg balance). The five-factor EFA for StART and clinical assessments explained 65.8% total variance: gait (single-task and dual-task tandem gait), functional movement (StART single-task and dual-task cutting), static dual-task (StART standing, single-leg balance), neurocognitive (ImPACT verbal memory, visual memory, visual-motor speed), and static single task (StART standing, single-leg balance). No other outcomes met the factor loading threshold.StART displayed 3 distinct categories and had minimal redundancy within its subtests. StART did not meaningfully correlate with clinical assessments, suggesting that StART provides unique information by examining more functional, reactive movement.

PURPOSE This study aimed to examine the association between clinical and functional reaction time (RT) assessments with and without simultaneous cognitive tasks among healthy individuals. METHODS Participants (n = 41, 49% female; 22.5 ± 2.1 yr; 172.5 ± 11.9 cm; 71.0 ± 13.7 kg) completed clinical (drop stick, Stroop) and functional (gait, jump landing, single-leg hop, anticipated cut, unanticipated cut) RT assessments in random order. All RT assessments, except Stroop and unanticipated cut, were completed under single- (movement only) and dual-task conditions (movement and subtracting by 6s or 7s). Drop stick involved catching a randomly dropped rod embedded in a weighted disk. Stroop assessed RT via computerized neurocognitive testing. An instrumented walkway measured gait RT when center-of-pressure moved after random stimulus. All other functional RT assessments involved participants jumping forward and performing a vertical jump (jump landing), balancing on one leg (single-leg hop), or a 45° cut in a known (anticipated cut) or unknown (unanticipated cut) direction. RT was determined when the sacrum moved following random visual stimulus. Pearson correlation coefficients and a 5 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA compared RT assessments and cognitive conditions. RESULTS Stroop RT outcomes did not significantly correlate with functional RT assessments (r range = -0.10 to 0.24). A significant assessment by cognitive task interaction (F4,160 = 14.01; P < 0.001) revealed faster single-task RT among all assessments compared with dual-task (mean differences, -0.11 to -0.09 s; P < 0.001), except drop stick (P = 0.195). Single-leg hop (0.58 ± 0.11 s) was significantly slower compared with jump landing (0.53 ± 0.10 s), anticipated cut (0.49 ± 0.09 s), gait (0.29 ± 0.07 s), and drop stick (0.21 ± 0.03 s; P values ≤ 0.001). Dual-task assessments were significantly slower than single-task assessments (mean difference, 0.08 s; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Clinical and functional RT assessments were not correlated with each other, suggesting that sport-like RT is not being assessed after concussion. Functional and dual-task RT assessments may add clinical value and warrant further exploration after concussion.

ObjectiveTo compare simulated driving reaction time (RT) between concussed and control individuals and examine Driving-RTs relationship with computerized neurocognitive testing RT (CNT-RT).BackgroundConcussed patients have impaired RT and neurocognition following injury that may linger and impair driving performance. Limited research has used direct methods to assess driving-RT post-concussion.Design/MethodsWe employed a cross-sectional laboratory study among 14 concussed and 14 healthy age, sex, and driving experience-matched controls (female: 60%; Age: 20.3 ± 1.1 years). Participants completed driving-RT and CNT-RT (CNS Vital Signs) within 48 hours of asymptomatic (15.9 ± 9.8 days post-concussion). Driving-RT consisted of two simulated driving scenarios: Stoplight (green to yellow stoplight change) and Pedestrian (child running in front of vehicle). CNT-RT outcomes included: simple-, complex-, Stroop-, and composite-RT. Independent t-tests and Hedges' g effect sizes assessed between-group RT differences (seconds), and Pearson correlation coefficients examined relationships between driving-RT and CNT-RT (a = 0.05) outcomes.ResultsConcussed participants demonstrated slower complex-RT than controls (mean difference: 0.06 s; 95% CI: 0.11–0.01; p = 0.03; g = 0.86). No other driving- or CNT-RT outcomes were statistically significant (p = 0.06), but Stoplight- (p = 0.13; g = 0.61) and Pedestrian-RT (p = 0.40; g = 0.36) demonstrated low-to high-magnitude effects for concussed deficits. Complex-, Stroop-, and composite-RT moderately correlated with Stoplight-RT (p 0.05; r range: −0.19 to 0.05).ConclusionsPost-concussion driving- and CNT-RT outcomes overall normalized once asymptomatic, but complex-RT and large magnitude effects may indicate lingering deficits. Driving- and CNT-RT measures moderately correlated with each other, but a lack of strong correlation likely indicates driving responsiveness is not thoroughly assessed using traditional CNT post-concussion, which may have vital driving safety implications.

This review systematically addresses the evidence confirming polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as a cardiovascular health threat. Literature in this area is void of long-term prospective studies to adequately evaluate outcome, but there is important evidence using surrogate markers for future development of and presence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in women with PCOS. In addition, this article reviews the evidence regarding evaluation and management of cardiovascular risk factors in the population of women with PCOS. We seek to review the literature to determine when or if recommendations for management of women with PCOS should deviate from guidelines for the population at large.