Vestibular/ocular motor screening (VOMS) score for identification of concussion in cases of non-severe head injury: A systematic review

• Published in: Journal of Concussion Vol. 7
• Main Authors: Thomas, Caroline E., Thomas, Stephen H., Bloom, Ben
• Format: Book Review Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.01.2023; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Concussion; Head; Head injuries; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Traumatic brain injury; Vestibular system; mild head injury; Concussion; emergency department; vestibular/ocular motor screen (VOMS); sports injury
• ISSN: 2059-7002; 2059-7002
• DOI: 10.1177/20597002231160941

Background and importance Each year, 1.4 million patients attend a UK ED with a head injury. Mild traumatic brain injury affects up to 300/100 000 admitted patients/year and a greater number of non-admitted patients. Identifying those patients with a head injury that have concussion, and of those, which will have a prolonged recovery, is critical for discharge planning. The Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening test (VOMS) has been reported as a useful “sideline tool” to evaluate for sports-related concussion (SRC). VOMS has been assessed for utility primarily for predicting in head-injured, which cases will have concussion, and secondarily in predicting in concussed patients, which will have prolonged recovery. Originally described in 2014, VOMS has not been subject to systematic review or meta-analysis, with regard to its predictive performance for concussion. Objective To assess the state of VOMS evidence for dichotomously classifying concussion status in patients with non-severe head injury Design Systematic review. Setting and participants Studies comprising the review enrolled ambulatory head-injured adults and children, usually from sports-related settings, in Europe or the USA. Exposure VOMS. Outcome measures Presence of concussion, presence of prolonged recovery in concussed patients Main results The review identified 17 studies, characterized by a wide variety of specific approaches to administering and scoring VOMS. While VOMS showed promise as a screening tool for concussion, marked study heterogeneity precluded generation of a pooled effect estimate for VOMS performance. Conclusion VOMS is potentially useful as a concussion screening tool. Available evidence from the SRC arena suggests sensitivity ranging from 58–96%, with specificity 46−92%. Directions for future VOMS research should include evaluation of standardized administration and scoring, potentially of a simpler VOMS (with fewer components), in a general head-injured population. Further analysis of precisely defined VOMS application may be useful to determine the proper place of VOMS screening for the head-injured.