Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27900197›Full record

ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2016

Research priorities of international sporting federations and the IOC research centres.

Caroline F Finch, Scott Talpey, Ashley Bradshaw, Torbjorn Soligard, Lars Engebretsen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Developing the role of the sports dentist.British dental journal · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

5 authors.

Caroline F FinchAustralian Collaboration for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention (ACRISP) , Federation University Australia , Ballarat, Victoria , Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1711-1930
Scott TalpeyAustralian Collaboration for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention (ACRISP) , Federation University Australia , Ballarat, Victoria , Australia.
Ashley BradshawAustralian Collaboration for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention (ACRISP) , Federation University Australia , Ballarat, Victoria , Australia.
Torbjorn SoligardMedical and Scientific Department , International Olympic Committee , Lausanne , Switzerland.
Lars EngebretsenMedical and Scientific Department, International Olympic Committee, Lausanne, Switzerland; Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center (OSTRC), Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Oslo, Norway; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimTo be fully effective, the prevention of injury in sport and promotion of athlete's health needs to be both targeted and underpinned by scientific evidence. This study aimed to identify the research priorities of International Sporting Federation (ISFs) compared to the current research focus of the International Olympic Committee Research Centres (IOC-RCs).

methodsOnline survey of ISF Medical Chairpersons (n=22, 69% response) and IOC-RC Directors (n=7, 78% response). Open-ended responses relating to injury/illness priorities and specific athlete targets were thematically coded. Ratings were given of the need for different research types according to the Translating Research into Injury Prevention Practice (TRIPP) Framework stages. Results are presented as the frequency of ISFs and IOC-RCs separately.

resultsBoth ISFs and IOC-RFs prioritised research into concussion (27%, 72%, respectively), competitive overuse (23%, 43%) and youth (41%, 43%). The ISFs also ranked catastrophic injuries (14%), environmental factors (18%), elite athletes (18%) and Paralympic athletes (14%) as important. The IOC-RCs gave higher priority to preventing respiratory illness (43%), long-term health consequences of injury (43%) and recreational athletes (43%). There was a trend towards ISFs valuing TRIPP stage 5/6 research more highly and for the IOC-RCs to value TRIPP stage 1/2 research.

conclusionsThere are clear opportunities to better link the priorities and actions of the ISFs and IOC-RCs, to ensure more effective practice-policy-research partnerships for the benefit of all athletes. Setting a mutually-agreed research agenda will require further active engagement between researchers and broader ISF representatives.

Indexed as

IllnessResearchSporting injuriesSporting organisation

Identifiers

PMID27900197
PMCPMC5125424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.