Influence of Surveillance Methods in the Detection of Sports Injuries and Illnesses.
definition
epidemiology
health problem
methodology
Journal
International journal of sports physical therapy
ISSN: 2159-2896
Titre abrégé: Int J Sports Phys Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101553140
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
05
04
2022
accepted:
24
07
2022
entrez:
14
10
2022
pubmed:
15
10
2022
medline:
15
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Epidemiological data on sports injuries and illnesses depend on the surveillance methodology and the definition of the health problems. The effect of different surveillance methods on the data collection has been investigated for overuse injuries, but not for other health problems such as traumatic injuries and illnesses. The purpose of this study was to investigate the new surveillance method developed by the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center (OSTRC), which is based on any complaint definition (new method), to identify health problems compared with the traditional surveillance method, which is based on time loss definition. Descriptive epidemiology study. A total of 62 Japanese athletes were prospectively followed-up for 18 weeks to assess differences in health problems identified by both new and traditional methods. Every week, the athletes completed the Japanese version of the OSTRC questionnaire (OSTRC-H2.JP), whereas the teams' athletic trainers registered health problems with a time loss definition. The numbers of health problems identified via each surveillance method were calculated and compared with each other to assess any differences between their results. The average weekly response rate to the OSTRC-H2.JP was 82.1% (95% CI, 79.8-84.3). This new method recorded 3.1 times more health problems (3.1 times more injuries and 2.8 times more illnesses) than the traditional method. The difference between both surveillance methods' counts was greater for overuse injuries (5.3 times) than for traumatic injuries (2.5 times). This study found that the new method captured more than three times as many health problems as the traditional method. In particular, the difference between both methods' counts was greater for overuse injuries than for traumatic injuries. 2b.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Epidemiological data on sports injuries and illnesses depend on the surveillance methodology and the definition of the health problems. The effect of different surveillance methods on the data collection has been investigated for overuse injuries, but not for other health problems such as traumatic injuries and illnesses.
Purpose
UNASSIGNED
The purpose of this study was to investigate the new surveillance method developed by the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center (OSTRC), which is based on any complaint definition (new method), to identify health problems compared with the traditional surveillance method, which is based on time loss definition.
Study design
UNASSIGNED
Descriptive epidemiology study.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A total of 62 Japanese athletes were prospectively followed-up for 18 weeks to assess differences in health problems identified by both new and traditional methods. Every week, the athletes completed the Japanese version of the OSTRC questionnaire (OSTRC-H2.JP), whereas the teams' athletic trainers registered health problems with a time loss definition. The numbers of health problems identified via each surveillance method were calculated and compared with each other to assess any differences between their results.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The average weekly response rate to the OSTRC-H2.JP was 82.1% (95% CI, 79.8-84.3). This new method recorded 3.1 times more health problems (3.1 times more injuries and 2.8 times more illnesses) than the traditional method. The difference between both surveillance methods' counts was greater for overuse injuries (5.3 times) than for traumatic injuries (2.5 times).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
This study found that the new method captured more than three times as many health problems as the traditional method. In particular, the difference between both methods' counts was greater for overuse injuries than for traumatic injuries.
Level of evidence
UNASSIGNED
2b.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36237647
doi: 10.26603/001c.37852
pii: 37852
pmc: PMC9528695
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1119-1127Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
Références
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 3;15(12):e0242993
pubmed: 33270675
J Athl Train. 2015 Feb;50(2):211-6
pubmed: 25531144
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Oct;31(10):2734-2739
pubmed: 28030532
Br J Sports Med. 2007 May;41(5):328-31
pubmed: 17452684
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016 Dec;26(12):1391-1397
pubmed: 26631937
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Apr;54(7):390-396
pubmed: 32060142
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Apr;28(4):1412-1423
pubmed: 29281145
Res Sports Med. 2021 Sep-Oct;29(5):475-485
pubmed: 34148441
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2019 Apr;14(2):237-252
pubmed: 30997276
Phys Ther Sport. 2021 Jul;50:7-14
pubmed: 33857814
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014 Feb;24(1):189-96
pubmed: 22582981
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015 Feb;25(1):104-9
pubmed: 24313387
Orthop J Sports Med. 2020 Dec 11;8(12):2325967120968552
pubmed: 33354583
Br J Sports Med. 2006 Mar;40(3):193-201
pubmed: 16505073
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006 Dec;16(6):426-32
pubmed: 17121645
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Apr;54(7):372-389
pubmed: 32071062
Br J Sports Med. 2021 Jan;55(1):9-13
pubmed: 33082146
Br J Sports Med. 2013 May;47(8):495-502
pubmed: 23038786
Br J Sports Med. 2021 Feb;55(4):231-236
pubmed: 32868315
Br J Sports Med. 2009 Dec;43(13):966-72
pubmed: 19945978
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Feb;51(4):260-263
pubmed: 27797733
Br J Sports Med. 2014 May;48(9):754-60
pubmed: 23429267
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 1;16(4):e0249685
pubmed: 33793679
Br J Sports Med. 2008 Jun;42(6):413-21
pubmed: 18390916
Eur J Sport Sci. 2022 Apr;22(4):511-520
pubmed: 33568023