ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
The Risks of Misunderstanding the Term "Risk Factor": A Primer with Suggestions to Improve Sports Medicine.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Invisible Harms, Visible Benefits? Adverse Event Reporting in Physical Activity Interventions for Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Meta-analysis and Critical Appraisal.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Reframing Hamstring Strain Injury Risk in Soccer: A Sprint Mechanism-Oriented 'Hardware-Software' Perspective.Sports healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The term "risk factor" is commonly used in research. Although many interpret the term to imply that the risk factor causes the outcome, others use the term to mean a marker for the outcome, which may or may not be a cause of the outcome. How the term risk factor is interpreted can importantly influence the way that study findings are applied in real world settings. For example, if a risk factor is wrongly interpreted to be a cause of an outcome when it is merely associated with the outcome because of noncausal reasons, then wasteful interventions may be developed, recommended, and implemented. The primary aims of this article are (1) to describe how varying definitions of the term risk factor can cause misunderstandings and potentially negatively impact the field of sports medicine, and (2) to propose new, more specific, terminology. We first review some basic concepts on how variables can be associated due to either causal or noncausal reasons and then discuss possible explanations for why the term risk factor continues to be misunderstood. We illustrate how using the term risk factor without further specification creates misunderstandings that can lead to the development and implementation of ineffective interventions. Finally, with the hope of improving communication and avoiding ambiguity in sports medicine, we suggest using "causal risk factor" if the evidence supports causality, "noncausal risk factor" if the evidence does not support causality, and "risk marker" for those not wishing to commit to a causal or noncausal claim.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41417212What 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.