ArticleBritish journal of sports medicine2014
Coding OSICS sports injury diagnoses in epidemiological studies: does the background of the coder matter?
Article in British journal of sports medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guidance for sports injury surveillance: the 20-year influence of the Australian Sports Injury Data Dictionary.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2018Pooled it
- Translation Into Spanish and Proposal to Modify the Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS) Version 12.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
- Injury incidence within male elite New Zealand cricket from the early T20 era: 2009-2015.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2021Article
- International Olympic Committee consensus statement: methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sport 2020 (including STROBE Extension for Sport Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS)).British journal of sports medicine · 2020Article
- International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement: Methods for Recording and Reporting of Epidemiological Data on Injury and Illness in Sports 2020 (Including the STROBE Extension for Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS)).Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2020Article
- Time-Loss Injuries in Karate: A Prospective Cohort Study of 4 Consecutive World Karate Championships.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2019Article
- Investigation of the Influence of Reduced Graphene Oxide Flakes in the Dielectric on Surface Characteristics and Material Removal Rate in EDM.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- The efficacy of a movement control exercise programme to reduce injuries in youth rugby: a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2016Article
- Concussion in community Australian football - epidemiological monitoring of the causes and immediate impact on play.Injury epidemiology · 2015Article
- KneeTex: an ontology-driven system for information extraction from MRI reports.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2015Article
- Categorising sports injuries in epidemiological studies: the subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) model to address multiple, recurrent and exacerbation of injuries.British journal of sports medicine · 2014Article
- Measuring sports injuries on the pitch: a guide to use in practice.Brazilian journal of physical therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS-10) sports medicine diagnoses assigned by a clinical and non-clinical coder.
designAssessment of intercoder agreement.
settingCommunity Australian football.
participants1082 standardised injury surveillance records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Direct comparison of the four-character hierarchical OSICS-10 codes assigned by two independent coders (a sports physician and an epidemiologist). Adjudication by a third coder (biomechanist).
resultsThe coders agreed on the first character 95% of the time and on the first two characters 86% of the time. They assigned the same four-digit OSICS-10 code for only 46% of the 1082 injuries. The majority of disagreements occurred for the third character; 85% were because one coder assigned a non-specific 'X' code. The sports physician code was deemed correct in 53% of cases and the epidemiologist in 44%. Reasons for disagreement included the physician not using all of the collected information and the epidemiologist lacking specific anatomical knowledge.
conclusionsSports injury research requires accurate identification and classification of specific injuries and this study found an overall high level of agreement in coding according to OSICS-10. The fact that the majority of the disagreements occurred for the third OSICS character highlights the fact that increasing complexity and diagnostic specificity in injury coding can result in a loss of reliability and demands a high level of anatomical knowledge. Injury report form details need to reflect this level of complexity and data management teams need to include a broad range of expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.