Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42435097›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2026

Concussion: A Comprehensive Review of Current Evidence.

Kalvis Hornburg, Claire E Cassianni, Shaheed M Muhammad, Juan E Muñoz Eusse, R Conner Dixon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kalvis HornburgDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Claire E CassianniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Shaheed M MuhammadDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Juan E Muñoz EusseDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
R Conner DixonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara, Santa Clara, CA, USA. rconnerdixon@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6500-1418

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewConcussion is a common form of mild traumatic brain injury affecting nearly two million people yearly, costing the US nearly 19 billion dollars annually. In light of such significant prevalence and disease burden, tools and interventions aimed at improving diagnosis, recovery, and management are constantly evolving. This narrative review synthesizes literature from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar (2015-2025), prioritizing systematic reviews, randomized trials, and consensus guidelines with the goal of summarizing current best-practices based on up-to-date data and expert opinion. RECENT

findingsConcussion remains a clinical diagnosis supported by tools such as the SCAT6, though limitations persist. Biomarkers demonstrate high sensitivity for intracranial injury, but limited utility for diagnosing uncomplicated concussion. Recovery is heterogeneous, influenced by initial symptom burden, patient factors, and mechanism of injury. Management has shifted toward early, symptom-guided activity and targeted, multimodal rehabilitation. Persistent symptoms reflect multifactorial etiologies that require individualized care. Concussion care is transitioning toward more objective assessment and personalized management, though gaps remain in diagnostic precision and in predicting prolonged recovery.

Indexed as

ConcussionMild traumatic brain injuryPersisting symptoms after concussionPost concussion syndrome

Identifiers

PMID42435097
PMCPMC13355989

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.