ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Examining the Reliability and Validity of Coding Perceived Force Severity and Bracing in the NHL Concussion Spotter Program.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Data obtained from the National Hockey League (NHL) have shown that a risk prediction model, including both visible signs and mechanisms of injury, improves the identification of possible concussion. However, only about half of concussions diagnosed by club medical staff in the NHL exhibit visible signs. At present, the NHL concussion spotter protocol does not include central league spotters' subjective judgments of the severity of forces associated with a direct hit to the head (perceived force severity [PFS]) or whether players brace before a hit (bracing). Purpose: To examine the interrater reliability, preliminary validity, and association with concussion diagnosis of central league spotter determinations of PFS and bracing. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Video footage of 1071 events after a direct or indirect blow to the head were observed from the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 NHL seasons. These events were classified into 4 groups: concussion with visible signs; concussion without visible signs; no concussion with visible signs; and no concussion without visible signs. A total of 50 events were randomly selected from the total events in each group. Then, 2 raters (NHL central league spotters) coded PFS for each of the 200 video events as low, medium, or high. Bracing was coded as no bracing, insufficient bracing, or full bracing. Results: Interrater reliability was fair to moderate for the categorical and continuous ratings of both PFS (κ = 0.36 and 0.45, respectively) and bracing (κ = 0.40 and 0.49, respectively). There was no significant association between concussion diagnosis and either PFS ( Conclusion: The interrater reliability for PFS and for bracing was fair to moderate. Neither PFS nor bracing were significantly related to concussion diagnosis, but they were significantly associated with other visible signs and mechanisms of injury.
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.