Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36237647›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2022

Influence of Surveillance Methods in the Detection of Sports Injuries and Illnesses.

Sonoko Mashimo, Takaaki Hogan, Satoru Nishida, Yumi Watanabe, Yuya Matsuki, Hirokazu Suhara, Naruto Yoshida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Sonoko MashimoInstitute for Liberal Arts and Sciences, Osaka Electro-Communication University.ORCID 0000-0002-2982-3890
Takaaki HoganMedia Communication Center, Osaka Electro-Communication University.
Satoru NishidaFaculty of Sports and Health Science, Fukuoka University.ORCID 0000-0002-2288-3399
Yumi WatanabeDepartment of Physical Therapy, Riseisha College of Medicine and Sport.
Yuya MatsukiDepartment of Health and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Kyoto University of Advanced Science.
Hirokazu SuharaKyobun Performance Center, College of Tokyo Judo Therapy.ORCID 0000-0001-9728-5193
Naruto YoshidaFaculty of Health Care, Teikyo Heisei University.ORCID 0000-0003-1647-5900

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: 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: 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: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: 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: 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: 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: 2b.

Indexed as

definitionepidemiologyhealth problemmethodology

Identifiers

PMID36237647
PMCPMC9528695

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.