Search

Injury and illness surveillance, and epidemiological studies, are fundamental elements of concerted efforts to protect the health of the athlete. To encourage consistency in the definitions and methodology used, and to enable data across studies to be compared, research groups have published 11 sport-specific or setting-specific consensus statements on sports injury (and, eventually, illness) epidemiology to date. Our objective was to further strengthen consistency in data collection, injury definitions and research reporting through an updated set of recommendations for sports injury and illness studies, including a new Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist extension. The IOC invited a working group of international experts to review relevant literature and provide recommendations. The procedure included an open online survey, several stages of text drafting and consultation by working groups and a 3-day consensus meeting in October 2019. This statement includes recommendations for data collection and research reporting covering key components: defining and classifying health problems; severity of health problems; capturing and reporting athlete exposure; expressing risk; burden of health problems; study population characteristics and data collection methods. Based on these, we also developed a new reporting guideline as a STROBE Extension-the STROBE Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS). The IOC encourages ongoing in- and out-of-competition surveillance programmes and studies to describe injury and illness trends and patterns, understand their causes and develop measures to protect the health of the athlete. Implementation of the methods outlined in this statement will advance consistency in data collection and research reporting.

BACKGROUND: Injury and illness surveillance, and epidemiological studies, are fundamental elements of concerted efforts to protect the health of the athlete. To encourage consistency in the definitions and methodology used, and to enable data across studies to be compared, research groups have published 11 sport- or setting-specific consensus statements on sports injury (and, eventually, illnesses) epidemiology to date. OBJECTIVE: To further strengthen consistency in data collection, injury definitions, and research reporting through an updated set of recommendations for sports injury and illness studies, including a new Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist extension. STUDY DESIGN: Consensus statement of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). METHODS: The IOC invited a working group of international experts to review relevant literature and provide recommendations. The procedure included an open online survey, several stages of text drafting and consultation by working groups, and a 3-day consensus meeting in October 2019. RESULTS: This statement includes recommendations for data collection and research reporting covering key components: defining and classifying health problems, severity of health problems, capturing and reporting athlete exposure, expressing risk, burden of health problems, study population characteristics, and data collection methods. Based on these, we also developed a new reporting guideline as a STROBE extension-the STROBE Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS). CONCLUSION: The IOC encourages ongoing in- and out-of-competition surveillance programs and studies to describe injury and illness trends and patterns, understand their causes, and develop measures to protect the health of the athlete. The implementation of the methods outlined in this statement will advance consistency in data collection and research reporting.

AbstractResearchers across many fields routinely analyze trial data using Null Hypothesis Significance Tests with zero null and p < 0.05. To promote thoughtful statistical testing, we propose a visualization tool that highlights practically meaningful effects when calculating sample sizes. The tool re-purposes and adapts funnel plots, originally developed for meta-analyses, after generalizing them to cater for meaningful effects. As with traditional sample size calculators, researchers must nominate anticipated effect sizes and variability alongside the desired power. The advantage of our tool is that it simultaneously presents sample sizes needed to adequately power tests for equivalence, for non-inferiority and for superiority, each considered at up to three alpha levels and in positive and negative directions. The tool thus encourages researchers at the design stage to think about the type and level of test in terms of their research goals, costs of errors, meaningful effect sizes and feasible sample sizes. An R-implementation of the tool is available on-line.