Screening for @entity410 to drive after XXXX : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

@entity1 @entity410 @entity64 @entity4456
OBJECTIVE: To identify the @entity410 to drive after @entity64 , following a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Twenty databases were searched, from inception until @entity4456 , 2010. Potentially relevant studies were reviewed by 2 authors for eligibility. Methodologic quality was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scores. The @entity410 -to-drive outcome was a pass-fail decision following an on-road evaluation. Differences in off-road performance between the pass and fail groups were calculated using weighted mean effect sizes (d(w)). Statistical heterogeneity was determined with the I   statistic. Random-effects models were performed when the assumption of homogeneity was not met. Cutoff scores of accurate determinants were estimated via receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included in the systematic review and 27 in the meta-analysis. Out of 1,728 @entity1 , 938 (54%) passed the on-road evaluation. The best determinants were Road Sign Recognition (d(w) 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.44; I(2), 58%), Compass (d(w) 1.06; 95% CI 0.74-1.39; I  , 36%), and Trail Making Test B (TMT B; d(w) 0.81; 95% CI 0.48-1.15; I(2), 49%). Cutoff values of 8.5 points for Road Sign Recognition, 25 points for Compass, and 90 seconds for TMT B were identified to classify unsafe drivers with accuracies of 84%, 85%, and 80%, respectively. Three out of 4 studies found no increased risk of accident involvement in @entity1 cleared to resume driving after @entity64 . CONCLUSIONS: The Road Sign Recognition, Compass, and TMT B are clinically administrable office-based tests that can be used to identify @entity1 with @entity64 at risk of failing an on-road assessment.
