Toomas Timpka1, Jenny Jacobsson2, Joakim Ekberg3, Caroline F Finch4, Jerome Bichenbach5, Pascal Edouard6, Victor Bargoria7, Pedro Branco8, Juan Manuel Alonso9. 1. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden; Unit for Health Analysis, Centre for Healthcare Development, County Council of Östergötland, Sweden. Electronic address: toomas.timpka@liu.se. 2. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden. 3. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden; Unit for Health Analysis, Centre for Healthcare Development, County Council of Östergötland, Sweden. 4. Australian Centre for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention (ACRISP), Federation University Australia, Australia. 5. Department of Philosophy, Queen's University, Canada. 6. Department of Clinical and Exercise Physiology, Sports Medicine Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, France; Laboratory of Exercise Physiology, University of Lyon, France. 7. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden; Department of Orthopeadics and Rehabilitation, Moi University, Kenya. 8. European Athletics Medical & Anti-Doping Commission, European Athletics Association (EAA), Switzerland; International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Medical and Anti-Doping Commission, Monaco. 9. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Medical and Anti-Doping Commission, Monaco; Sports Medicine Department, Aspetar, Qatar Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Hospital, Qatar.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Consistency in routines for reporting injury has been a focus of development efforts in sports epidemiology for a long time. To gain an improved understanding of current reporting practices, we applied the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF) in a review of injury reporting in a subset of the field. DESIGN: Meta-narrative review. METHODS: An analysis of injury definitions reported in consensus statements for different sports and studies of injury epidemiology in athletics (track and field) published in PubMed between 1980 and 2013 was performed. Separate narratives for each of the three reporting contexts in the IDCF were constructed from the data. RESULTS: Six consensus statements and 14 studies reporting on athletics injury epidemiology fulfilled the selection criteria. The narratives on sports performance, clinical examination, and athlete self-report contexts were evenly represented in the eligible studies. The sports performance and athlete self-report narratives covered both professional and community athletes as well as training and competition settings. In the clinical examination narrative, data collection by health service professionals was linked to studies of professional athletes at international championships. CONCLUSIONS: From an application of the IDCF in a review of injury reporting in sports epidemiology we observed a parallel usage of reporting contexts in this field of research. The co-existence of reporting methodologies does not necessarily reflect a problematic situation, but only provided that firm precautions are taken when comparing studies performed in the different contexts.
OBJECTIVES: Consistency in routines for reporting injury has been a focus of development efforts in sports epidemiology for a long time. To gain an improved understanding of current reporting practices, we applied the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF) in a review of injury reporting in a subset of the field. DESIGN: Meta-narrative review. METHODS: An analysis of injury definitions reported in consensus statements for different sports and studies of injury epidemiology in athletics (track and field) published in PubMed between 1980 and 2013 was performed. Separate narratives for each of the three reporting contexts in the IDCF were constructed from the data. RESULTS: Six consensus statements and 14 studies reporting on athletics injury epidemiology fulfilled the selection criteria. The narratives on sports performance, clinical examination, and athlete self-report contexts were evenly represented in the eligible studies. The sports performance and athlete self-report narratives covered both professional and community athletes as well as training and competition settings. In the clinical examination narrative, data collection by health service professionals was linked to studies of professional athletes at international championships. CONCLUSIONS: From an application of the IDCF in a review of injury reporting in sports epidemiology we observed a parallel usage of reporting contexts in this field of research. The co-existence of reporting methodologies does not necessarily reflect a problematic situation, but only provided that firm precautions are taken when comparing studies performed in the different contexts.