Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
A Multi-Modal Approach to Assessing Recovery in Youth Athletes Following Concussion
Published on: September 25, 2014
Concussion Classification in a Multicenter Patient Cohort: The Updated ACRM Diagnostic Criteria and Concordance With
Andrew B Dodd1, Noah D Silverberg, Keith Owen Yeates
1Author Affiliations: Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario (Mr Dodd, Ms Chen, Dr Kutcher, Dr Webster, Mr Terekhov, and Dr Zemek); Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia (Dr Silverberg); Rehabilitation Research Program, Centre for Aging SMART, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia (Dr Silverberg); Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, & Department of Psychology, & Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta (Dr Yeates); Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON (Drs Johnston, Cortel-LeBlanc, and Zemek); and Institut du Savoir Montfort, Hôpital Montfort, Ottawa, Ontario (Drs Johnston and Cortel-LeBlanc).
Objective:
The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) substantially revised its diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in 2023, encompassing acute symptoms and positive clinical and laboratory examinations, in addition to immediate signs of injury. This study aimed to apply these criteria to a large, diverse cohort and compare the diagnostic determination to physician impression of injury.
Setting:
A network of 3 concussion specialty clinics in Ontario, Canada.
Participants:
A total of 1447 patients (61.0% female; median age = 26 years [IQR: 15-42 years, range: 3-87 years]; days post-injury (median: 23 IQR: [13-47, 0-349]) completed initial evaluations between June 28, 2024 and June 18, 2025.
Design:
Prospective observational study.
Main Measures:
Occurrence rates were calculated, and binary/ordinal logistic regressions were applied to determine if individual criterion endorsement or diagnostic outcome ("Definite," "Suspected," and "No mTBI") was associated with age, sex, symptoms at clinical presentation, or days post-injury. Additionally, concordance with physician impression was assessed similarly.
Results:
Criteria for signs, symptoms, and clinical examinations were all more likely to be endorsed with increasing symptom severity at presentation, as was an ACRM diagnostic outcome of definite mTBI. Shorter time post-injury was associated with positive clinical/laboratory examinations and the presence of confounding factors, in addition to a definite diagnostic outcome. A total of 18.4% of cases were classified less definitively as mTBI by physician impression than by the updated ACRM diagnosis, with physicians tending toward underdiagnosis, particularly in patients reporting lower current symptom severity.
Conclusion:
Use of the ACRM criteria clinically to determine if an injury qualifies as mTBI may be less susceptible to bias from ongoing symptom reporting than the physician impression of the injury.
Related Concept Videos
01:21Cellular Injury II: Classification
01:28Traumatic Brain Injury l: Introduction