List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
The growing concern over concussions has sparked a new wave of products designed to diagnose and even prevent mild traumatic brain injuries. I examined the science behind programs such as baseline testing and claims that mouth guards, helmet and chin strap sensors, supplements such as fish oil and smart phone apps can play a role in preventing concussions. I found there’ s a significant gap between evidence and practice.In many cases, products claiming to offer “protection” and “faster recovery” are unproven and offer a false sense of security.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Pub Med Cochrane Review IOM BU Center for Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy Centers for Disease Control
Explain types of human sources used.
Neuropsychologist Christopher Randolph of Loyola was a key source as he published a highly critical review of ImPACT, one of the most common baseline testing programs. I decided to look into the story after hearing Ann McKee (of the BU Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy) mention in a speech to physicians that baseline testing is still unproven. I talked to researchers, hockey, soccer and football coaches, athletic trainers, parents, children who had concussions and were quitting their sports and children who had several “bell-ringers” but want to keep playing. I talked with several company officials who manufacture the products (Shock Doctor, ImPACT)
Results:
ImPACT is so widely used that everyone assumes it works. We raised awareness that there is no such thing as a “concussion-proof” helmet and that mouth guards don’t prevent concussions. We also prompted parents, coaches and doctors to start asking questions about the validity of product claims. My story was picked up by several bloggers who work to raise awareness about head injuries, including Mom’sTeam.com and the concussionblog.com.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No clarifications
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
I took a very broad look at these products/programs. Other journalists could look more closely at one aspect, such as baseline testing, which still doesn’t have a lot of strong evidence showing it works. It may, in fact, lead to a false sense of security. Fish oil is another good area to look at; it has some promising research. And new helmet technology is of great interest. I would have liked to go to a session of baseline testing — to see if kids take it seriously — but we wrote the piece in the summer and athletes were out of season. (Of course, they might take it seriously with a reporter there but interviews with some kids might tell another story)