ArticleInjury epidemiology2024
Publicly available data sources in sport-related concussion research: a caution for missing data.
Article in Injury epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Contrasting rule and machine learning based digital self triage systems in the USA.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearchers often use publicly available data sources to describe injuries occurring in professional athletes, developing and testing hypotheses regarding athletic-related injury. It is reasonable to question whether publicly available data sources accurately indicate athletic-related injuries resulting from professional sport participation. We compared sport-related concussion (SRC) clinical incidence using data from publicly available sources to a recent publication reporting SRC using electronic health records (EHR) from the National Football League (NFL). We hypothesize publicly available data sources will underrepresent SRC in the NFL. We obtained SRCs reported from two publicly available data sources (NFL.com, pro-football-reference.com) and data reported from the NFL's published EHR. We computed SRC per 100 unique player signings from 2015-2019 and compared the clinical incidence from publicly available data sources to EHR rates using clinical incidence ratios (CIR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
findingsFrom 2015-2019, SRC counts from published EHR record data ranged from 135-192 during the regular season, whereas SRC counts ranged from 102-194 and 69-202 depending on the publicly available data source. In NFL.com the SRC clinical incidence was significantly and progressively lower in 2017 (CIR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91), 2018 (CIR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.50-0.87), and 2019 (CIR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.35-0.64) relative to the gold-standard EHR. In the pro-football-reference.com data, the documented SRCs in publicly available data sources for other years were ~ 20-30% lower than the gold-standard EHR numbers (CIRs 0.70-0.81).
conclusionsPublicly available data for SRCs per 100 unique player signings did not match published data from the NFL's EHR and in several years were significantly lower. Researchers should use caution before using publicly available data sources for injury research.
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.