ArticleScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2023
A comparison of two pre-race medical screening tools in 5771 running race entrants-SAFER XXVIII.
Article in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- TheFrontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Pre-race medical screening and harm reduction approaches in ultra-endurance racing: A descriptive pilot study of global practice.JSAMS plus · 2025Article
- A comparison of two pre-race medical screening tools in 5771 running race entrants-SAFER XXVIII.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2023Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if two pre-race screening tools (abbreviated tool of two open-ended pre-race medical screening questions [ABBR] vs. a full pre-race medical screening tool [FULL]) identify running race entrants at higher risk for medical encounters (MEs) on race day.
methods5771 consenting race entrants completed both an ABBR and a FULL pre-race screening questionnaire for the 2018 Comrades Marathon (90 km). ABBR tool questions were (1) allergies, and (2) known medical conditions and/or prescription medication use. The FULL tool included multiple domains of questions for chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease (CVD), symptoms, risk factors, allergies and medication use. ABBR responses were manually coded and compared to the FULL tool. The prevalence (%: 95%CI), and the test for equality of prevalence of entrants identified by the ABBR vs. FULL tool is reported.
resultsThe ABBR identified fewer entrants with allergies (ABBR = 7.9%; FULL = 10.4%: p = 0.0001) and medical conditions/medication use (ABBR = 8.9%; FULL = 27.4%: p = 0.0001). The ABBR tool significantly under-reported entrants with history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), CVD risk factors, other chronic diseases and prescription medication vs. the FULL tool (p = 0.0001). The ABBR tool identified fewer entrants in the "high" (ABBR = 3.4%; FULL = 12.4%) and "very high" risk (ABBR = 0.5%; FULL = 3.4%) categories for race day MEs (p = 0.0001).
conclusionsAn abbreviated pre-race screening tool significantly under-estimates chronic medical conditions, allergies, and race entrants at higher risk for MEs on race day, compared with a full comprehensive screening tool. We recommend that a full pre-race medical screening tool be used to identify race entrants at risk for MEs.
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.