Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
ProceedingsProceedings
  • Abstract
  • Open Access

27 February 2026

1 Page

A Review of Traumatic Brain Injury Evaluation in Sports †

,
,
,
and
Faculty of Medicine, University of Brasília (UnB), Brasília 70910-900, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Presented at the 6th International Congress on Health Innovation—INOVATEC 2025, Hybrid, 21–23 November 2025.
Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI), characterized by changes in brain function due to external forces, is an important challenge. In the sports context, TBI is responsible for a significant number of disabilities and deaths, which highlights the need for an adequate and efficient assessment of the extent of trauma. This study aims to analyze the tools for assessing TBI in sports in order to evaluate its therapeutic and prognostic value. Methodology: This study conducted a normative review of the literature through national and international journals from the PubMed, Scielo, and ScienceDirect databases based on the selection of recent publications (2016 to 2025) on the clinical and social context of sports TBI. Results: Clinical evaluation, scales/scores, and imaging exams are essential for the evaluation and prediction of the course of injuries caused by TBI. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), for example, assesses the patient’s level of consciousness based on ocular, verbal, and motor responses—incorporating, more recently, the pupillary reflex. The score obtained allows the TBI to be classified as mild, moderate, or severe quickly even during sport practice. In addition to imaging tests such as CT scans and MRIs, GCS helps health professionals make more accurate clinical decisions and identify secondary impairments. Conclusions: Tools such as GCS and imaging tests are essential for early diagnosis and therapeutic guidance. Its proper use contributes to reducing complications, optimizing costs, and improving the quality of life of patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.G.M.Q. and S.A.S.K.; methodology, S.A.S.K.; formal analysis, I.G.M.Q., E.R.M., M.Y.R. and C.F.M.; data curation, I.G.M.Q., E.R.M., M.Y.R. and C.F.M.; writing—original draft preparation, I.G.M.Q.; writing—review and editing, I.G.M.Q., E.R.M., M.Y.R. and C.F.M.; supervision, S.A.S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.