Skip to main content
Download PDF

Prognostic factors for persistent symptoms in adults with mild traumatic brain injury: an overview of systematic reviews

Systematic Reviews volume 12, Article number: 127 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is an increasing public health problem, because of its persistent symptoms and several functional consequences. Understanding the prognosis of a condition is an important component of clinical decision-making and can help to guide the prevention of persistent symptoms following mTBI. The prognosis of mTBI has stimulated several empirical primary research papers and many systematic reviews leading to the identification of a wide range of factors. We aim to synthesize these factors to get a better understanding of their breadth and scope.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched in databases systematic reviews synthesizing evidence about the prognosis of persistent symptoms after mTBI in the adult population. Two reviewers independently screened all references and selected eligible reviews based on eligibility criteria. They extracted relevant information using an extraction grid. They also rated independently the risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. We synthesized evidence into a comprehensive conceptual map to facilitate the understanding of prognostic factors that have an impact on persistent post-concussion symptoms.

Results

From the 3857 references retrieved in a database search, we included 25 systematic reviews integrating the results of 312 primary articles published between 1957 and 2019. We examined 35 prognostic factors from the systematics reviews. No single prognostic factor demonstrated convincing and conclusive results. However, age, sex, and multiple concussions showed an affirmatory association with persistent post-concussion outcomes in systematic reviews.

Conclusion

We highlighted the need for a comprehensive picture of prognostic factors related to persistent post-concussion symptoms. We believe that these prognostic factors would guide clinical decisions and research related to prevention and intervention regarding persistent post-concussion symptoms.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020176676

Peer Review reports

Background

Incidence of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) has increased in the last decades [1,2,3], and persistent symptoms associated with this condition have received increasing attention [4]. In fact, even if most of the symptoms of an mTBI resolve in a few days or weeks after the trauma [5], 5 to 20% of individuals encounter persistent physical, cognitive, and behavioral persistent symptoms [6]. Such symptoms, like headaches, difficulty concentrating, fatigue, and dizziness [7] that persist after mTBI, can have important impacts on day-to-day activities and lead to functional consequences (such as workplace fatigue and inability to maintain workload/standards) [8, 9]. To prevent these consequences, it is important to acutely recognize the factors that can influence the persistence of symptoms [6]. The definition of persistent symptoms after mTBI caused controversy over the years [5, 10]. However, a recent expert consensus was reached in 2021 by Lagacé-Legendre et al. [11] regarding the definition of mTBI persistent symptoms as a whole, which includes the actual symptoms, their frequency, and duration: “presence of any symptom that cannot be attributed to a preexisting condition (e.g., preexisting mental health problems) and that appeared within hours of an mTBI, that is still present every day 3 months after the trauma, and that has an impact on at least one sphere of a person’s life.” Persistent symptoms after mTBI are both complex and non-specific, because many can overlap with other conditions (e.g., low back pain and whiplash-associated disorders), which highlights the need to identify the subgroups of the mTBI population that might benefit from specific and timely interventions [12]. Acutely identifying these factors would help healthcare providers to better appraise the prognosis of individuals with mTBI and identify the patients that have many factors associated with a poor prognostic to intervene before the symptoms become chronic [13, 14].

Indeed, understanding a condition’s prognostic factors, defined as “a variable associated with a subsequent outcome such as disability among people with a disease or health condition” [14], is recognized as an important component of clinical decision-making [13, 15]. Patients with many factors associated with a poor prognosis should arguably be considered for more in-depth evaluation and targeted intervention in acute and subacute stages of the condition to prevent symptom persistence. Persistent symptoms could thus be reduced by identifying and addressing earlier prognostic factors, such as comorbidities (e.g., depression, anxiety) [12, 16]. As such exhaustive listing of prognostic factors has not been produced yet, it is difficult for clinicians and researchers to take in consideration the range of potential factors in clinical decision-making for assessing the prognosis of the patient and prioritizing them.

Multiple systematic reviews synthesized information about this population and prognostic factors associated with various outcomes. The World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre Task Force has produced twelve systematic reviews related to the prognosis for mTBI between 2004 and 2016 [2, 4, 5, 12, 17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. These reviews mainly synthesized studies employing longitudinal design to identify time to recovery and prognostic factors affecting recovery or symptom persistence [19]. The WHO reviews identified various predictors of prolonged symptoms or associated with slower recovery, such as financial compensation, being married, being off work due to the injury, post-injury symptoms of nausea or memory problems, and many more [19]. In addition, some authors have systematically reviewed the evidence about particular prognostic factors including sex [18], age [24, 25], and biomarkers [26, 27], and others were interested in specific outcomes related to mTBI, such as cognitive and psychiatric outcomes [5, 22], adding to the complex portrait of potential predictors of persistent symptoms. Despite extensive evidence, the breadth and scope of prognostic factors associated with persistent post-concussion symptoms have not yet been determined nor integrated into a comprehensive model such as the post-concussional syndrome model proposed by Hou et al. [28] which organized the predictors in larger categories of prognostic factors. Our objective is to synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the nature of factors that affect the risk of persistent symptoms in adults with mTBI.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (OvSR) following the principles of the Cochrane Handbook’ [29] and other recent methodological papers [30,31,32]. An OvSR is a rigorous approach to mapping evidence of a large body of literature in a given area [33, 34]. The aim of OvSR is not to report individual systematic review summaries, but it should aim to synthesize across included systematic review evidence to bring new insights to existing evidence [33]. It is also used to provide an accessible summary of evidence to support decision-making by clinicians, policymakers, and developers of clinical guidelines [35]. Despite their increasing popularity in healthcare research over the past years, there are currently no systematically developed reporting guidelines for OvSR [35, 36]. However, we conducted this OvSR in consultation with the PRISMA 2020 statement [37] (Supplemental file 1). This review has been registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020176676). Details about the specific methods used have been published previously [38].

Criteria for selecting reviews for inclusion

We included reviews that employed a systematic review or meta-analysis design explicitly describing a systematic search, i.e., a search strategy and article selection process precisely presented (e.g., with a PRISMA flow diagram), with enough detail to be reproducible. We included reviews that targeted multiple populations (e.g., children and adults). However, we only analyzed the primary studies that were conducted with adults since the overview only targets this population. We did not restrict our inclusion process based on a specific setting, context, or specific eligible time period. We included reviews that highlight at least one prognostic factor related to the course of persistent post-concussion symptoms, defined for this OvRS as Légacé-Legendre et al. [11] stated. We also included reviews that did not specifically target post-concussion symptoms, but only the results related to outcomes after 3 months were integrated into this synthesis. We excluded narrative, non-systematic reviews, editorials/commentaries, conference abstracts, grey literature, and thesis. We also excluded reviews about moderate, severe, or non-traumatic brain injuries.

Search methods for identification of reviews

Our search strategy included the two main concepts: “adults with mTBI/concussion” and “systematic reviews.” An example of a search strategy in MEDLINE (Ovid) is displayed in Supplemental file 2. We searched in Cochrane Library (Wiley), MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals without date restrictions. We validated our strategy by consulting search filters such as those reported by the InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group [39].

Selecting systematic reviews for inclusion

Once duplicates were removed, two reviewers independently screened all the titles and abstracts of all references imported from the databases in the Covidence online software [40]. They read the full text to include papers that were potentially relevant based on the eligibility criteria. The reviewers discussed disagreements until consensus, and a third member of the team was consulted if necessary.

Managing overlapping systematic reviews

We took into consideration that systematic reviews may include the same primary studies. Thus, we created a citation matrix to visually demonstrate the number of overlapping reviews and we calculated the “corrected covered area” (CCA) [41]. We calculated the CCA as a measure of overlap by dividing the frequency of repeated occurrences of the primary studies in other reviews by the product of primary studies and reviews, and this product is reduced by the number of primary studies. A CCA value lower than 5 can be considered as a slight overlap, whereas values greater than or equal to 15 can be considered as a very high overlap [41].

Data collection

We first extracted basic information from all selected reviews in a predefined grid, such as the title, authors, year of publication, designs of the primary studies, population studied, number of primary studies included, and purpose of the reviews. We then extracted from the reviews information related to prognostic factors, such as participant inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size, and prognostic factors associated with outcomes related to persistent symptoms [13]. Our extraction focused on the outcomes related to persistent post-concussion symptoms, according to the definition proposed by Lagacé-Legendre et al. [11]. We limited our extraction to information presented in the included systematic reviews, so we did not examine the primary research studies [29]. Two independent reviewers (JD, BO) extracted data, and information was compared to reach a consensus.

Summarizing data

We organized the information from the reviews into a comprehensive model about prognostic factors. We used the model proposed by Hou et al. [28] which organized the predictors in predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors. Narrative descriptions and tabular forms complement the data and provide a comprehensive understanding of the prognostic factors. Systematic reviews of prognostic factors present their results in a form which does not permit re-analysis of primary data, so we did not quantify the prognostic effects in a risk prediction model [13, 42]. Given the goal of our study, we chose to gather all outcomes related to persistent post-concussion symptoms and not to run a secondary analysis on the specific outcomes.

Quality of included reviews

Two assessors rated the risk of bias in the included reviews using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool [43]. ROBIS is useful and reliable for systematic reviewers to identify areas where bias may be introduced into systematic review methods: study eligibility criteria, identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal, and synthesis and findings [43]. Both assessors (JD and BO) scored the risk of bias of the reviews as low, high, or unclear concerns, and these scores are displayed in a table and a figure as suggested by Whiting et al. [43]. We did not exclude reviews based on their risk of bias evaluations, but we took in consideration the scores attributed for each review in the synthesis.

Results

We retrieved 3857 records from the database search. Once duplicates were removed, we screened 2678 references, and we assessed 64 full-text articles for eligibility. We finally included 25 systematic reviews in our OvSR [2, 5, 17,18,19, 22, 24,25,26,27, 44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. The details of the selection process are presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1). We counted a total of 312 primary studies relevant to our objective, which were published between 1957 and 2018. This number excludes studies on pediatric populations included in some reviews [18, 19, 22, 50, 54, 56]. We present the characteristics of the reviews included in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram [37]

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of the systematic reviews included
Full size table

Overlapping systematic reviews

The CCA was calculated as follows: (365 − 312)/((312 × 25) − 312) = 0.007. Of the 312 primary publications, only 1 was included in 4 reviews, 7 were included in 3 reviews, and 36 were included in 2 reviews. The citation matrix is available in Supplemental file 3. Considering the very slight overlap found, we did not conduct further analysis to avoid double-counting of primary results.

Risk of bias

We evaluated the risk of bias with the ROBIS tool of the 25 systematic reviews included. We displayed the summarized results of this assessment in Fig. 2. Of the 25 reviews, 12 were considered as low risk of bias, and 13 were assessed as high risk of bias. Details of ROBIS results in a tabular form are available in Supplemental file 4.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Graphical presentation of ROBIS results from all studies

Full size image

Prognostic factors

Overall, 35 individual prognostic factors were extracted from the systematic reviews. These factors are presented in Table 2 and definitions retrieved from the systematic reviews or from another relevant source of information when available in Table 3. We summarized the results by documenting their association with the outcomes of interest predicted (persistent symptoms and their related consequences). We divided the factors into three types of association with outcomes:

  • (+) Reviews that described a positive association between the factor and at least one outcome of mTBI

  • (+/−) Reviews that described limited or mixed evidence of an association between the factor and at least one outcome of mTBI

  • (−) Reviews that concluded no association between the factor and at least one outcome of mTBI

Table 2 Association between prognostic factors and outcomes described in the reviews
Full size table
Table 3 Definitions of the prognostic factors
Full size table

We mapped the prognostic factors into the model developed by Hou et al. [28] also used by Rickards et al. [64] (Fig. 3). We highlighted in bold type the 23 factors that were described being associated with persistent post-concussion outcomes in at least one systematic review. We added factors that could not be included in only one category, so we integrated them overlapping the model.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Model of prognostic factors associated with persistent post-concussion symptoms

Full size image

The predisposing factors are characterized by premorbid attributes that may predispose people with mTBI to experiencing persistent PCS. Our overview highlighted that many personal factors, such as age, sex, level of education, and marital status, were found to be prognostic factors for persistent PCS. Personality traits of resilience have shown to be a “protective” factor including in “predisposing” factor because resilience tends to be related to fewer long-term PCS in adults. Premorbid mental and physical problems have been reported to be relevant factors resulting in poor outcomes, whereas having prior neurological problems found limited evidence as a prognostic factor. Sustaining multiple concussions has been shown in systematic reviews to be one of the most frequently mentioned factors associated with the presence of PCS after 3 months and more.

The precipitating factors are considered as characteristics of the injury or related to the event. The most studied factors have been related to the presence of specific biomarkers, such as brain structural changes, protein serum level, or the presence of a specific gene allele. With 9 reviews presenting mixed results, we found no clear consensus in systematic reviews about their association with poorer outcomes 3 months after mTBI in the adult population. Having suffered an extracranial injury, having memory of the event, or experiencing nausea or vomiting seem to be prognostic factors based on some reviews included. Other precipitating factors related to the mTBI, such as the mechanism of the injury, the presence of LOC or PTA after the trauma, and being intoxicated tend to show more limited results in the literature.

The perpetuating factors represent all the other characteristics that contribute to the maintenance of the PCS. Being involved in litigation or receiving financial compensation has been reported to be associated to the persistence of PCS, and it could delay return to work after mTBI. The presence of pain (e.g., back or neck pain), headaches, or other somatic complaints experienced by adults with mTBI have been demonstrated to predict worse outcomes. One systematic review highlighted that individuals having job independence and decision-making latitude at work can be a “protective” factor that helps RTW.

Psychiatric disorders (i.e., ASD, PTSD, anxiety, and depression) and negative perceptions of the injury or symptoms can influence the onset or contribute to the maintenance of the persistent PCS.

Outcomes predicted

We focused our overview on the outcomes measured 3 months or more after the mTBI. Outcomes considered had to be related to at least one post-concussion symptom or its functional consequences [11]. One review highlighted only outcomes related to return to work (RTW) [48], but all the other reviews showed results of mixed post-concussion symptoms and outcomes (including cognitive or neuropsychological functioning outcomes). Some other outcomes were also considered as they are related to “impact on patient’s quality of life and functioning” [11], such as measures of quality of life [2, 27, 56, 57], social integration [51], and substance abuse [49]. Given the goal of our study and the small number of reviews focusing on those outcomes, we chose not to run a secondary analysis on those specific effects.

Discussion

There are increasing interests in the population and in the research about mTBI prevention, diagnosis, and prognosis to improve treatment and clinical decision-making [5, 19, 20, 65]. Multiple systematic reviews synthesized information about this population and prognostic factors associated with various outcomes. We aimed to present a synthesis of systematic reviews concerning any variable associated with persistent post-concussion symptoms after 3 months. We provided a comprehensive overview of the state of the evidence available concerning the 35 prognostic factors that have been systematically reviewed. Premorbid characteristics, such as age, sex, prior concussions, and mental/physical problems, need to have special attention having stronger evidence that demonstrated a relation with poor outcome 3 months post-injury. Having somatic complaints (e.g., headaches, neck or back pain) after the injury and negative perceptions or expectations related to the recovery were also associated with persistent symptoms following mTBI. However, we could not conclude a clear prognostic relation regarding physiological characteristics after mTBI such as the presence of specific biomarkers.

Other authors had interests in reviewing, understanding, and identifying prognostic or risk factors associated with persistent problems related to a specific condition, such as whiplash injury [66,67,68], neck pain [69, 70], orthopedic trauma [71], and all TBI [72].

Walton et al. [66] found 9 significant predictors for persistent problems following whiplash injury, such as no postsecondary education, female gender, history of previous neck pain, baseline neck pain intensity greater than 55/100, presence of neck pain at baseline, presence of headache at baseline, catastrophizing, whiplash-associated disorder grade 2 or 3, and no seat belt in use at the time of collision. Scholten-Peeters et al. [67] showed that of over 100 different prognostic factors examined, only one (high initial pain intensity) demonstrated a strong evidence association with persisting symptoms after whiplash-associated disorders. Finally, a meta-review of Sarrami et al. [68] presented five associated factors with the prognosis for people with whiplash injury, which were post-injury pain, disability and anxiety, catastrophizing, compensation and legal factors, and early use of healthcare. Walton et al. [69] suggested that the prognosis of neck pain of various causes is generally poor, and there are relatively few factors that allow high or moderate confidence in their use as predictors of outcome. Clay et al. [71] reported strong evidence supporting the association of female sex, older age, high pain intensity, preinjury anxiety or depression, and fewer years of education with persistent pain outcomes following acute orthopedic trauma. Willemse-van et al. [72] reported in their review that older age, pre-injury unemployment, pre-injury substance abuse, and more severe disability at rehabilitation discharge were strong predictors for long-term disability after TBI. Hence, these conditions seem to have similar prognosis factors for persistent symptoms. Older age, female gender, and presence of somatic complaints after the event, such as the intensity of pain, can be considered as general prognostic factors to examine from the outset.

Most prognostic factors highlighted in these reviews and in our overview are premorbid characteristics or early-on symptoms, which are variables related to the injury that cannot be modified. It is however possible that prioritizing individuals with a higher number of prognosis factors would lead to better outcomes in care. We also discuss that interventions could target some perpetuating factors, by reducing life stressors, improving the quality of sleep and focusing on realist expectations, and helping to manage symptomatic complaints. Although there is no clear evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for reducing persistent post-concussion symptoms [73,74,75,76], educational and behavioral interventions seem promising like a multidimensional psychoeducative and counseling intervention (SAAM) based on a biopsychosocial model, addresses misconception and perception of mTBI recovery and postconcussion symptoms through up-to-date psychoeducation, and provides reassurance and counseling about recovery and motivation for change [77]. Thus, post-acute recommended interventions tend to match with these objectives, such as education regarding normalizing symptoms, expected outcomes and positive recovery, technique to manage stress, and gradual return to activities and life roles [78]. While commonly used treatment remains educational and reassurance early after the injury, these interventions showed mixed results concerning effectiveness [76, 79]. The current evidence tend to suggest psychological and rehabilitative strategies [76], such as cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive rehabilitation [65], psychotherapeutic interventions, social work interventions, self-management strategies [80], and specialized interdisciplinary rehabilitation [81] for reducing chronic post-concussive symptoms. In addition, future studies should explore whether a patient’s outcome after mTBI can be improved by removing or reducing a prognostic factor. For example, while we know that patients experiencing intense headaches or pain after mTBI are more likely to have poor long-term outcomes, more research is needed to examine the effects of intervention reducing this prognostic factor on persistent post-concussion symptoms outcomes.

It is possible that clinical decision-making and organizational interventions can be developed by taking into consideration these prognostic factors. For example, adopting more rigorous criteria to identify patients who would benefit from further treatment, such as identifying those who are at high risk of developing persistent symptoms by having ≥ 3 symptoms according to the RPQ during the early phase post-injury [74]. Rytter et al. [81] suggested a focus on the effective identification of patients who are at risk of maintaining persistent post-concussive symptoms in order to initiate a treatment plan in a timely fashion. Early and effective identification of risk factors of persistent symptoms may indicate earlier intervention and prevention of such chronicity after mTBI [64].

Evidence have highlighted the importance of early identification of this at-risk population and how to prevent persistent symptoms before onset. However, we need to acknowledge that some individuals may fall through the cracks of the system and they can experience a prolonged recovery (more than 3 months) [6, 7]. Once these patients show signs of chronic symptomatology, prognostic factors are therefore more than important to consider, as time is running out. The authors are unanimous that patients experiencing persistent consequences following mTBI must receive healthcare services in a timely manner [12, 81]. Referral to a specialized multidisciplinary mTBI clinic can be appropriate for patients with persistent symptoms that do not respond to treatment in a primary care setting [82]. Access to such specialized rehabilitation services can be complex and patients often face long waiting times [83,84,85]. The results of this OvR could help multiple stakeholders, such as clinicians and healthcare managers, to understand the prognosis of their patients and to focus their time and resources on patients needing them the most. It could also inform decision-makers and policymakers about the challenge of early identification of prognostic factors in order to prevent the onset of persistent symptoms.

It is known that overviews of reviews often lack methodological rigor because there are no pre-established reporting guidelines [86]. However, we have based our methods on Cochrane Handbook [29] and several previous works [30,31,32,33,34,35, 87] that can appropriately guide us through a rigorous process. We must acknowledge that our review has some limitations. The first is that, by the nature of an overview, we limited our data analysis to what was presented in the systematic reviews included. Thus, results presented in our OvSR had already been synthesized by previous authors, so prognostic factors may have been omitted as we did not analyze the primary articles. Our intent was to have a broad picture of all prognostic factors reviewed in the literature, and we are aware that our results should be interpreted with caution. Even if we showed a very small CCA value, we did not conduct further analysis regarding the primary studies in each review, so two reviews may have analyzed data from the same studies. While most of the included systematic reviews targeted only the adult population with mTBI, some have examined a broader population, which made it more difficult to extract the relevant data in some systematic reviews. We chose to include all adult populations with mTBI (veterans, military personnel, and adults with sport-related injury) to be in adequation with our objective, but it may have led to complicate the data synthesis of prognostic factors into a single comprehensive model. We also need to mention that few systematic reviews presented results of prognostic factors that did not demonstrate an association with outcomes, which shows several publication biases.

Conclusion

Having multiple articles reviewing information about populations with mTBI and prognostic factors associated with persistent outcomes, we aimed to produce a synthesis of this extensive evidence. We found a broad portrait of prognostic factors related to persistent post-concussion symptoms, and this overview highlighted the need for a comprehensive picture of this condition. Premorbid characteristics as well as negative perceptions of the recovery need to have special attention regarding the risk of persistent symptoms. We believe that these prognostic factors would guide clinical decisions and research related to prevention and intervention regarding persistent post-concussion symptoms.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this overview article.

Abbreviations

ASD:

Acute stress disorder

BAI/BDI:

Beck Anxiety/Depression Inventory

CCA:

Corrected covered area

CINAHL:

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

CT:

Computed tomography

DTI:

Diffusion tensor imaging

DSM:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders

ED:

Emergency department

GCS:

Glasgow Coma Scale

HR:

High risk

HADS:

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

LOC:

Loss of consciousness

LR:

Low risk

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

MRS:

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy

mTBI:

Mild traumatic brain injury

OvSR:

Overview of systematic reviews

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PCS:

Postconcussion symptoms

PET:

Positron emission tomography

PTA:

Post-traumatic amnesia

PTSD:

Post-traumatic stress disorder

ROBIS:

Risk of Bias in Systematic Review

rs-fMRI:

Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging

RTW:

Return to work

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Voss JD, Connolly J, Schwab KA, Scher AI. Update on the epidemiology of concussion/mild traumatic brain injury. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2015;19(7):32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cassidy JD, Cancelliere C, Carroll LJ, Côté P, Hincapié CA, Holm LW, et al. Systematic review of self-reported prognosis in adults after mild traumatic brain injury: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):S132–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lefevre-Dognin C, Cogné M, Perdrieau V, Granger A, Heslot C, Azouvi P. Definition and epidemiology of mild traumatic brain injury. Neurochirurgie. 2021;67(3):218–21.

  4. Cancelliere C, Hincapié CA, Keightley M, Godbolt AK, Côté P, Kristman VL, et al. Systematic review of prognosis and return to play after sport concussion: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):S210–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD, Cancelliere C, Côté P, Hincapié CA, Kristman VL, et al. Systematic review of the prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury in adults: cognitive, psychiatric, and mortality outcomes: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):S152–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mott T, McConnon ML, Rieger BP. Subacute to chronic mild traumatic brain injury. Am Fam Phys. 2012;86(11):1045–51.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hiploylee C, Dufort PA, Davis HS, Wennberg RA, Tartaglia MC, Mikulis D, et al. Longitudinal study of postconcussion syndrome: not everyone recovers. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(8):1511–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Konrad C, Geburek AJ, Rist F, Blumenroth H, Fischer B, Husstedt I, et al. Long-term cognitive and emotional consequences of mild traumatic brain injury. Psychol Med. 2011;41(6):1197–211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cooksley R, Maguire E, Lannin NA, Unsworth CA, Farquhar M, Galea C, et al. Persistent symptoms and activity changes three months after mild traumatic brain injury. Aust Occup Ther J. 2018;65(3):168–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kristman VL, Borg J, Godbolt AK, Salmi LR, Cancelliere C, Carroll LJ, et al. Methodological issues and research recommendations for prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3 Suppl):S265-77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lagacé-Legendre C, Boucher V, Robert S, Tardif PA, Ouellet MC, de Guise E, et al. Persistent Postconcussion Symptoms: An Expert Consensus-Based Definition Using the Delphi Method. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2021;36(2):96–102.

  12. Nygren-de Boussard C, Holm LW, Cancelliere C, Godbolt AK, Boyle E, Stålnacke B-M, et al. Nonsurgical interventions after mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):257–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Riley RD, Moons KG, Snell KI, Ensor J, Hooft L, Altman DG, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ. 2019;364:k4597.

  14. Riley RD, Moons KG, Hayden JA, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. Prognostic factor research. In: Riley RD, van der Windt D, Croft P, Moons KGM, editors. Prognosis research in health care: concepts, methods, and impact. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019.

  15. Riley RD, van der Windt D, Croft P, Moons KG. Prognosis research in health care: concepts, methods, and impact. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. McCauley SR, Boake C, Levin HS, Contant CF, Song JX. Postconcussional disorder following mild to moderate traumatic brain injury: anxiety, depression, and social support as risk factors and comorbidities. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001;23(6):792–808.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boyle E, Cancelliere C, Hartvigsen J, Carroll LJ, Holm LW, Cassidy JD. Systematic review of prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury in the military: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):S230–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Cassidy JD. Is sex an indicator of prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic analysis of the findings of the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(2):S5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Peloso P, Borg J, Von Holst H, Holm L, et al. Prognosis for mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Med. 2004;Suppl. 43:84–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cassidy JD, Carroll L, Peloso P, Borg J, Von Holst H, Holm L, et al. Incidence, risk factors and prevention of mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36:28–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Keightley ML, Côté P, Rumney P, Hung R, Carroll LJ, Cancelliere C, et al. Psychosocial consequences of mild traumatic brain injury in children: results of a systematic review by the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):S192–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Godbolt AK, Cancelliere C, Hincapié CA, Marras C, Boyle E, Kristman VL, et al. Systematic review of the risk of dementia and chronic cognitive impairment after mild traumatic brain injury: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):S245–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hung R, Carroll LJ, Cancelliere C, Côté P, Rumney P, Keightley M, et al. Systematic review of the clinical course, natural history, and prognosis for pediatric mild traumatic brain injury: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):S174–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. King N. Permanent post concussion symptoms after mild head injury: a systematic review of age and gender factors. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(4):741–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. King NS. A systematic review of age and gender factors in prolonged post-concussion symptoms after mild head injury. Brain Inj. 2014;28(13–14):1639–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mercier E, Tardif P-A, Cameron PA, Émond M, Moore L, Mitra B, et al. Prognostic value of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) for prediction of post-concussion symptoms following a mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Brain Inj. 2018;32(1):29–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mercier E, Tardif PA, Cameron PA, Batomen Kuimi BL, Émond M, Moore L, et al. Prognostic value of S-100β protein for prediction of post-concussion symptoms after a mild traumatic brain injury: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurotrauma. 2018;35(4):609–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hou R, Moss-Morris R, Peveler R, Mogg K, Bradley BP, Belli A. When a minor head injury results in enduring symptoms: a prospective investigation of risk factors for postconcussional syndrome after mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012;83(2):217–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker L, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 61 (updated September 2020): Cochrane; 2020. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-v.

  30. Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Fernandes RM. Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: a discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis. Evidence-Based Child Health. 2014;9(2):486–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):231.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2—risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):159.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Hartling L, Chisholm A, Thomson D, Dryden DM. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PloS One. 2012;7(11):e49667.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Pieper D, Tricco AC, Gates M, Gates A, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):335.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, The PRISMA, et al. statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2020;2021:372.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Déry J, De Guise É, Bussières È-L, Lamontagne M-E. Prognostic factors for persistent symptoms in adults with mild traumatic brain injury: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):254.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Wright K, Glanville J, Lefebvre C. The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group Search Filter Resource (SFR). 2012. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/intertasc/index.htm.

  40. Babineau J. Product review: Covidence (systematic review software). J Can Health Lib Assoc. 2014;35(2):68–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pieper D, Antoine S-L, Mathes T, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):368–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Riley RD, Hayden JA, Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, Abrams K, Kyzas PA, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic factor research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001380.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Begaz T, Kyriacou DN, Segal J, Bazarian JJ. Serum biochemical markers for post-concussion syndrome in patients with mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2006;23(8):1201–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Belanger HG, Curtiss G, Demery JA, Lebowitz BK, Vanderploeg RD. Factors moderating neuropsychological outcomes following mild traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2005;11(3):215–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Belanger HG, Spiegel E, Vanderploeg RD. Neuropsychological performance following a history of multiple self-reported concussions: a meta-analysis. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2010;16(2):262–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Biagianti B, Stocchetti N, Brambilla P, Van Vleet T. Brain dysfunction underlying prolonged post-concussive syndrome: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2020;262:71–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cancelliere C, Kristman VL, Cassidy JD, Hincapié CA, Côté P, Boyle E, et al. Systematic review of return to work after mild traumatic brain injury: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):S201–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Finkbeiner NWB, Max JE, Longman S, Debert C. Knowing what we don’t know: long-term psychiatric outcomes following adult concussion in sports. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(5):270–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Khong E, Odenwald N, Hashim E, Cusimano MD. Diffusion tensor imaging findings in post-concussion syndrome patients after mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Front Neurol. 2016;7:156.

  51. Ludwig R, D’Silva L, Vaduvathiriyan P, Rippee MA, Siengsukon C. Sleep disturbances in the acute stage of concussion are associated with poorer long-term recovery: a systematic review. PM R. 2020;12(5):500–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Manley G, Gardner AJ, Schneider KJ, Guskiewicz KM, Bailes J, Cantu RC, et al. A systematic review of potential long-term effects of sport-related concussion. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(12):969–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Merritt VC, Padgett CR, Jak AJ. A systematic review of sex differences in concussion outcome: what do we know? Clin Neuropsychol. 2019;33(6):1016–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ofoghi Z, Dewey D, Barlow KM. A systematic review of structural and functional imaging correlates of headache or pain after mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(7):907–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Puig J, Ellis MJ, Kornelsen J, Figley TD, Figley CR, Daunis-I-Estadella P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers of brain connectivity in predicting outcome after mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(16):1761–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Silverberg ND, Gardner AJ, Brubacher JR, Panenka WJ, Li JJ, Iverson GL. Systematic review of multivariable prognostic models for mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32(8):517–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sullivan KA, Kempe CB, Edmed SL, Bonanno GA. Resilience and other possible outcomes after mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Neuropsychol Rev. 2016;26(2):173–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhu J, Ling J, Ding N. Association between diffusion tensor imaging findings and cognitive outcomes following mild traumatic brain injury: a PRISMA-Compliant Meta-Analysis. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2019;10(12):4864–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. World Health Organization. Biomarkers and risk assessment: concepts and principles. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Canadian Institute of Health Research. Definitions of sex and gender 2015 Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/47830.html.

  61. Air Force Center of Excellence for Medical Multimedia. Mechanisms of TBI Available from: https://tbi.cemmlibrary.org/Mild-TBI-Concussion/Mechanisms-of-TBI.

  62. Bryant RA, Harvey A. Acute stress disorder. In: Casey Patricia R, Strain James J, editors. Trauma- and stressor-related disorders: a handbook for clinicians. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ware JEJ. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25(24):3130–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Rickards TA, Cranston CC, McWhorter J. Persistent post-concussive symptoms: a model of predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2022;29(2):284–94.

  65. Levin HS, Diaz-Arrastia RR. Diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical management of mild traumatic brain injury. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(5):506–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Walton DM, Pretty J, MacDermid JC, Teasell RW. Risk factors for persistent problems following whiplash injury: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(5):334–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Scholten-Peeters GG, Verhagen AP, Bekkering GE, van der Windt DA, Barnsley L, Oostendorp RA, et al. Prognostic factors of whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Pain. 2003;104(1–2):303–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sarrami P, Armstrong E, Naylor JM, Harris IA. Factors predicting outcome in whiplash injury: a systematic meta-review of prognostic factors. J Orthop Traumatol. 2017;18(1):9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Walton DM, Carroll LJ, Kasch H, Sterling M, Verhagen AP, Macdermid JC, et al. An overview of systematic reviews on prognostic factors in neck pain: results from the International Collaboration on Neck Pain (ICON) Project. Open Orthop J. 2013;7:494–505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Verwoerd M, Wittink H, Maissan F, de Raaij E, Smeets RJ. Prognostic factors for persistent pain after a first episode of nonspecific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain: a systematic review. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;42:13–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Clay FJ, Watson WL, Newstead SV, McClure RJ. A systematic review of early prognostic factors for persistent pain following acute orthopedic trauma. Pain Res Manag. 2012;17(1):35–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Willemse-van Son AH, Ribbers GM, Verhagen AP, Stam HJ. Prognostic factors of long-term functioning and productivity after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(11):1024–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Cooper DB, Bunner AE, Kennedy JE, Balldin V, Tate DF, Eapen BC, et al. Treatment of persistent post-concussive symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of cognitive rehabilitation and behavioral health interventions in military service members and veterans. Brain Imaging Behav. 2015;9(3):403–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Teo SH, Fong KNK, Chen Z, Chung RCK. Cognitive and psychological interventions for the reduction of post-concussion symptoms in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Brain Inj. 2020;34(10):1305–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hadanny A, Efrati S. Treatment of persistent post-concussion syndrome due to mild traumatic brain injury: current status and future directions. Expert Rev Neurother. 2016;16(8):875–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Arbabi M, Sheldon R, Bahadoran P, Smith J, Poole N, Agrawal N. Treatment outcomes in mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Brain Inj. 2020;34(9):1139–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Audrit H, Beauchamp MH, Tinawi S, Laguë-Beauvais M, Saluja R, De Guise E. Multidimensional psychoeducative and counseling intervention (SAAM) for symptomatic patients with mild traumatic brain injury: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2021;36(4):E249–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Marshall S, Bayley M, McCullagh S, Velikonja D, Berrigan L, Ouchterlony D, et al. Updated clinical practice guidelines for concussion/mild traumatic brain injury and persistent symptoms. Brain Inj. 2015;29(6):688–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Sullivan KA, Kaye SA, Blaine H, Edmed SL, Meares S, Rossa K, et al. Psychological approaches for the management of persistent postconcussion symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(16):2243–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Jaber AF, Hartwell J, Radel JD. Interventions to address the needs of adults with postconcussion syndrome: a systematic review. Am J Occup Ther. 2019;73(1):7301205020p1-p12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rytter HM, Westenbaek K, Henriksen H, Christiansen P, Humle F. Specialized interdisciplinary rehabilitation reduces persistent post-concussive symptoms: a randomized clinical trial. Brain Inj. 2019;33(3):266–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Silverberg ND, Iaccarino MA, Panenka WJ, Iverson GL, McCulloch KL, Dams-O’Connor K, et al. Management of concussion and mild traumatic brain injury: a synthesis of practice guidelines. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(2):382–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. GTA Rehab Network. Outpatient rehabilitation in the GTA: understanding the current state. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Deslauriers S, Raymond M-H, Laliberté M, Lavoie A, Desmeules F, Feldman DE, et al. Access to publicly funded outpatient physiotherapy services in Quebec: waiting lists and management strategies. Disabi Rehabil. 2017;39(26):2648–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Passalent LA, Landry MD, Cott CA. Wait times for publicly funded outpatient and community physiotherapy and occupational therapy services: implications for the increasing number of persons with chronic conditions in Ontario. Canada Physiother Can. 2009;61(1):5–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1267–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Marie Denise Lavoie for helping to design the search strategy. The Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en réadaptation et intégration sociale (CIRRIS) is the research center of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et service sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, which is a public healthcare institution located in Quebec, Canada.

Funding

JD received a doctoral study grant from the Fonds de recherche du Québec Santé (FRQS) to conduct this review. MEL and EDG are both Fonds de recherche du Québec Santé Research Scholars.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Université Laval, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, local 2475, 1050, avenue de la Médecine, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Julien Déry, Béatrice Ouellet & Marie-Eve Lamontagne

  2. Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en réadaptation et intégration sociale (Cirris), 525, boul. Wilfrid-Hamel, Québec, QC, G1M 2S8, Canada

    Julien Déry, Béatrice Ouellet, Ève-Line Bussières & Marie-Eve Lamontagne

  3. Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

    Élaine de Guise

  4. Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI-MUHC), Montréal, Canada

    Élaine de Guise

  5. Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation du Montréal métropolitain (CRIR), Montréal, Canada

    Élaine de Guise

  6. Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 3007 Michel-Sarrazin, 3600 rue Sainte-Marguerite, Trois-Rivières, QC, G9A 5H7, Canada

    Ève-Line Bussières

Authors
  1. Julien Déry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Béatrice Ouellet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Élaine de Guise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ève-Line Bussières
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marie-Eve Lamontagne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JD conceptualized the study, was the lead author of the manuscript, and is the guarantor of the review. MEL and EDG contributed to the concept development, protocol development, and manuscript writing. BO participated in the extraction, the risk of bias assessment, and the manuscript writing. ELB revised the manuscript and helped to design the methodology.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Eve Lamontagne.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval is not required for this study as it is a systematic review.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Déry, J., Ouellet, B., de Guise, É. et al. Prognostic factors for persistent symptoms in adults with mild traumatic brain injury: an overview of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 12, 127 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13643-023-02284-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13643-023-02284-4

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053