Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21142284›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2011

Combining epidemiology and biomechanics in sports injury prevention research: a new approach for selecting suitable controls.

Caroline F Finch, Shahid Ullah, Andrew S McIntosh

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Response to the letter to the editor to discuss "Factors to consider when selecting an injured control group in case-control studies on skiing injuries".European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Caroline F FinchAccident Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. Caroline.Finch@monash.edu
Shahid Ullah
Andrew S McIntosh
Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUFederation University · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several important methodological issues need to be considered when designing sports injury case-control studies. Major design goals for case-control studies include the accounting for prior injury risk exposure, and optimal definitions of both cases and suitable controls are needed to ensure this. This article reviews methodological aspects of published sports injury case-control studies, particularly with regard to the selection of controls. It argues for a new approach towards selecting controls for case-control studies that draws on an interface between epidemiological and biomechanical concepts. A review was conducted to identify sport injury case-control studies published in the peer-review literature during 1985-2008. Overall, 32 articles were identified, of which the majority related to upper or lower extremity injuries. Matching considerations were used for control selection in 16 studies. Specific mention of application of biomechanical principles in the selection of appropriate controls was absent from all studies, including those purporting to evaluate the benefits of personal protective equipment to protect against impact injury. This is a problem because it could lead to biased conclusions, as cases and controls are not fully comparable in terms of similar biomechanical impact profiles relating to the injury incident, such as site of the impact on the body. The strength of the conclusions drawn from case-control studies, and the extent to which results can be generalized, is directly influenced by the definition and recruitment of cases and appropriate controls. Future studies should consider the interface between epidemiological and biomechanical concepts when choosing appropriate controls to ensure that proper adjustment of prior exposure to injury risk is made. To provide necessary guidance for the optimal selection of controls in case-control studies of interventions to prevent sports-related impact injury, this review outlines a new case-control selection strategy that reflects the importance of biomechanical considerations, which ensures that controls are selected based on the presence of the same global injury mechanism as the cases. To summarize, the general biomechanical principles that should apply to the selection of controls in future case-control studies are as follows: (i) each control must have been exposed to the same global injury mechanism as the case, (e.g. head impact, fall onto outstretched arm); and (ii) intrinsic (individual) factors (e.g. age, sex, skill level) that might modify the person's response to the relevant biomechanical loads are adjusted when either selecting the controls or are in the analysis phase. The same considerations for control selection apply to other study designs such as matched cohort studies or case-crossover studies.

Indexed as

Accident PreventionAthletic InjuriesBiomechanical PhenomenaCase-Control StudiesControl GroupsCraniocerebral TraumaHumansPatient SelectionPrimary PreventionProtective Devices

Identifiers

PMID21142284
OpenAlexW1986108098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.