Methodological and statistical heterogeneity in studies combined in mTBI meta-analyses significantly limits the conclusions that can be drawn from small or non-significant overall effect sizes; clinically relevant information can be obscured by meta-analytic procedures. Recommendations for future meta-analytic studies of mTBI are offered.

In 2009 Pertab, James, and Bigler published a critique of two prior meta-analyses by Binder, Rohling, and Larrabee (1997) and Frencham, Fox, and Maybery (2005) that showed small effect size difference at least 3 months post-injury in individuals who had sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). The Binder et al. and Frencham et al. meta-analyses have been widely cited as showing no lasting effect of mTBI. In their critique Pertab et al. (2009) point out many limitations of these two prior meta-analyses, demonstrating that depending on how inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined different meta-analytic findings occur, some supporting the persistence of neuropsychological impairments beyond 3 months. Rohling et al. (2011) have now critiqued Pertab et al. (2009). Herein we respond to the Rolling et al. (2011) critique reaffirming the original findings of Pertab et al. (2009), providing additional details concerning the flaws in prior meta-analytic mTBI studies and the effects on neuropsychological performance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract