Pilot study assesses self-reported measures and provocation testing in older adults, indicating differences in mTBI impacts.
A BSTRACT Introduction: Standard evaluation protocols for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), the same as concussion, support cost-effective care and successful outcomes. While clinical guidelines endorse these in young populations (ages <65), evidence is limited for older adults (ages ≥65), particularly regarding self-reported measures and provocation testing. This study aims to assess mTBI-specific protocols, including provocation tests, in older adults with and without mTBI. Methods: This pilot study was conducted in an academic research laboratory, in which 13 community members aged ≥65 with or without a history of mTBI were enrolled. Participants completed: 1) a participant-reported Health History Form, a Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), and a Post Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS); and 2) physical provocation testing using the Motion Sensitivity Quotient (MSQ) and a modified submaximal protocol of the Buffalo Concussion Bike Test (BCBT-M). Descriptive and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: This study was safely completed by all participants ( n = 13) in one session. Findings (95%CI, P < 0.05) included no differences between the group (non-mTBI = 9, mTBI = 4) median (Mdn) in age (Mdn = 73; U = 17; P = 0.940), and BCBT-M level of completion (Mdn = 7; 5.3-8.5; U = 13.5; P = 0.472). The PSFS (Mdn = 6.3; 5.8-7.1; U = 4.0; P = 0.034), the PCSS (Mdn = 42.5; U = 0.00; P = 0.003), and the MSQ (Mdn = 16.0; U = 3.0; P = 0.020) had significant differences between mTBI and non-mTBI groups. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated that older adults with and without mTBI fully engaged in standard guidelines of self-reported and physical provocation measures, with differences between the mTBI and non-mTBI groups. These early findings may inform baseline status among older adults with mTBI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barrett et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: