In Reply Casper raises the question of why we excluded discussion of second impact syndrome in our consensus statement.1 Second impact syndrome is an important topic with differing opinions regarding its pathophysiology and risk factors.2 More research is needed to accurately estimate the risk of second impact syndrome and to learn best prevention strategies. For these reasons, our panel elected not to include second impact syndrome as one of the questions to address. In addition, current understanding is that this syndrome appears to occur when a person who is already symptomatic from a current brain injury sustains a second impact to the brain. Laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia currently specifically say that symptomatic players are not to return to play until provided medical clearance.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Rivara FP, Giza CC, Gioia GA. Including Second Impact Syndrome in Sports-Related Concussions Evidence Review—Reply. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(8):802–803. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0540
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: