Search

Academics in sports medicine as well as other medical fields are generally expected to publish research and opinions in peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process is intended to protect against the publication of flawed research and unsubstantiated claims. However, both financial and non-financial competing interests may result in sub-optimal results by affecting investigators, editors, peer reviewers, academic institutions, and publishers. In this article, we focus on the non-financial competing interests created in our current academic system. Because these competing interests are embedded in our current scholastic framework, the potential biases are difficult to quantify. To minimize the effect of these competing interests, we review and highlight some underlying incentives for each stakeholder and some potential solutions to mitigate their effects., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

OBJECTIVE: To investigate open science practices in research published in the top 5 sports medicine journals from May 1, 2022, and October 1, 2022. DESIGN: A meta-research systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: Open science practices were searched in MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included original scientific research published in one of the identified top 5 sports medicine journals in 2022 as ranked by Clarivate: (1) British Journal of Sports Medicine , (2) Journal of Sport and Health Science , (3) American Journal of Sports Medicine , (4) Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise , and (5) Sports Medicine-Open . Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, gray literature, or animal or cadaver models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Open science practices were extracted in accordance with the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines and patient and public involvement. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three studies were included. The median number of open science practices in each study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (range: 0-8; interquartile range: 2). Two hundred thirty-four studies (96%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%-99%) provided an author conflict-of-interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62%-73%) reported funding. Twenty-one studies (9%, 95% CI: 5%-12%) provided open-access data. Fifty-four studies (22%, 95% CI: 17%-27%) included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) made code available. Seventy-six studies (32%, 95% CI: 25%-37%) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) used a reporting guideline. Twenty-eight studies (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) were preregistered. Six studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-4%) published a protocol. Four studies (2%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) reported an analysis plan a priori. Seven studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-5%) reported patient and public involvement. CONCLUSION: Open science practices in the sports medicine field are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12):1-13. Epub 20 October 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12016 .

Clinical prediction models in sports medicine that utilize regression or machine learning techniques have become more widely published, used, and disseminated. However, these models are typically characterized by poor methodology and incomplete reporting, and an inadequate evaluation of performance, leading to unreliable predictions and weak clinical utility within their intended sport population. Before implementation in practice, models require a thorough evaluation. Strong replicable methods and transparency reporting allow practitioners and researchers to make independent judgments as to the model's validity, performance, clinical usefulness, and confidence it will do no harm. However, this is not reflected in the sports medicine literature. As shown in a recent systematic review of models for predicting sports injury models, most were typically characterized by poor methodology, incomplete reporting, and inadequate performance evaluation. Because of constraints imposed by data from individual teams, the development of accurate, reliable, and useful models is highly reliant on external validation. However, a barrier to collaboration is a desire to maintain a competitive advantage; a team's proprietary information is often perceived as high value, and so these 'trade secrets' are frequently guarded. These 'trade secrets' also apply to commercially available models, as developers are unwilling to share proprietary (and potentially profitable) development and validation information. In this Current Opinion, we: (1) argue that open science is essential for improving sport prediction models and (2) critically examine sport prediction models for open science practices., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Return-to-play decision making should be based on all the advantages and disadvantages of return to play for athletes, not just the risk of injury. For competitive athletes, this includes the effect of early versus delayed return to sport on performance. In this paper, we address the questions "How can I estimate the effect of injury on the individual's performance at return to play?" and "What is the effect of delaying return to sport on the individual's performance?". To address these questions, we describe (1) some foundational concepts, design and analytical challenges related to estimating the causal effect of return to play timing on performance in the athlete, (2) additional challenges if one is interested in the effects of delaying return to play and (3) differences when the questions relate to the team's performance. Although the analytical strategies described appear complicated, coaches and athletes make these judgements informally every day without explicitly stating their assumptions. Using a formal approach should help analysts provide the most valid answers to the questions asked by athletes and coaches. In brief, the choice of a comparison group depends on the research question and requires that one consider the hypothetical performance trajectory of the athlete had they never been injured. Thus, the optimal comparison group depends on the shape of the expected trajectory and the specific research question being asked., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RA, MCA, FB, MC, SH, FMI, SM, MSR, GS, BV, JLW, MW and AAW declare they have no competing interests. CLA was a Deputy Editor (Systematic Reviews) for BJSM from 2016 to 2018. ED, HPD and AW are associate editors for BJSM. MCA was a member of the BJSM editorial board from 2008 to 2020. KMK was Editor-in-Chief of BJSM from 2008 to 2020. He holds no position with the BJSM or the BMJ Group at present (September 2021). DM is Chair of the PRISMA group, led the PRISMA 2009 statement and co-led the PRISMA 2020 statement. MJP co-led the PRISMA 2020 statement. ES was editor of BJSM from 2017 to 2020, and editor-in-chief of BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine from 2019 to 2020. He is a senior adviser to BJSM (September 2021)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In part 2 of this clinical commentary, we highlight the conceptual and methodologic pitfalls evident in current training-load-injury research. These limitations make these studies unsuitable for determining how to use new metrics such as acute workload, chronic workload, and their ratio for reducing injury risk. The main overarching concerns are the lack of a conceptual framework and reference models that do not allow for appropriate interpretation of the results to define a causal structure. The lack of any conceptual framework also gives investigators too many degrees of freedom, which can dramatically increase the risk of false discoveries and confirmation bias by forcing the interpretation of results toward common beliefs and accepted training principles. Specifically, we underline methodologic concerns relating to (1) measure of exposures, (2) pitfalls of using ratios, (3) training-load measures, (4) time windows, (5) discretization and reference category, (6) injury definitions, (7) unclear analyses, (8) sample size and generalizability, (9) missing data, and (10) standards and quality of reporting. Given the pitfalls of previous studies, we need to return to our practices before this research influx began, when practitioners relied on traditional training principles (eg, overload progression) and adjusted training loads based on athletes' responses. Training-load measures cannot tell us whether the variations are increasing or decreasing the injury risk; we recommend that practitioners still rely on their expert knowledge and experience., (© by the National Athletic Trainers' Association, Inc.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Aim: Prediction intervals are a useful measure of uncertainty for meta‐analyses that capture the likely effect size of a new (similar) study based on the included studies. In comparison, confidence intervals reflect the uncertainty around the point estimate but provide an incomplete summary of the underlying heterogeneity in the meta‐analysis. This study aimed to estimate (i) the proportion of meta‐analysis studies that report a prediction interval in sports medicine; and (ii) the proportion of studies with a discrepancy between the reported confidence interval and a calculated prediction interval. Methods: We screened, at random, 1500 meta‐analysis studies published between 2012 and 2022 in highly ranked sports medicine and medical journals. Articles that used a random effect meta‐analysis model were included in the study. We randomly selected one meta‐analysis from each article to extract data from, which included the number of estimates, the pooled effect, and the confidence and prediction interval. Results: Of the 1500 articles screened, 866 (514 from sports medicine) used a random effect model. The probability of a prediction interval being reported in sports medicine was 1.7% (95% CI = 0.9%, 3.3%). In medicine the probability was 3.9% (95% CI = 2.4%, 6.6%). A prediction interval was able to be calculated for 220 sports medicine studies. For 60% of these studies, there was a discrepancy in study findings between the reported confidence interval and the calculated prediction interval. Prediction intervals were 3.4 times wider than confidence intervals. Conclusion: Very few meta‐analyses report prediction intervals and hence are prone to missing the impact of between‐study heterogeneity on the overall conclusions. The widespread misinterpretation of random effect meta‐analyses could mean that potentially harmful treatments, or those lacking a sufficient evidence base, are being used in practice. Authors, reviewers, and editors should be aware of the importance of prediction intervals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hyperthermia (and associated health and performance implications) can be a significant problem for athletes and teams involved in intermittent sports. Quantifying the highest thermal strain (i.e. peak core body temperature [peak Tc]) from a range of intermittent sports would enhance our understanding of the thermal requirements of sport and assist in making informed decisions about training or match-day interventions to reduce thermally induced harm and/or performance decline. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise and characterise the available thermal strain data collected in competition from intermittent sport athletes. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on Web of Science, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus to identify studies up to 17 April 2023. Electronic databases were searched using a text mining method to provide a partially automated and systematic search strategy retrieving terms related to core body temperature measurement and intermittent sport. Records were eligible if they included core body temperature measurement during competition, without experimental intervention that may influence thermal strain (e.g. cooling), in healthy, adult, intermittent sport athletes at any level. Due to the lack of an available tool that specifically includes potential sources of bias for physiological responses in descriptive studies, a methodological evaluation checklist was developed and used to document important methodological considerations. Data were not meta-analysed given the methodological heterogeneity between studies and therefore were presented descriptively in tabular and graphical format. Results: A total of 34 studies were selected for review; 27 were observational, 5 were experimental (2 parallel group and 3 repeated measures randomised controlled trials), and 2 were quasi-experimental (1 parallel group and 1 repeated measures non-randomised controlled trial). Across all included studies, 386 participants (plus participant numbers not reported in two studies) were recruited after accounting for shared data between studies. A total of 4 studies (~ 12%) found no evidence of hyperthermia, 24 (~ 71%) found evidence of 'modest' hyperthermia (peak Tc between 38.5 and 39.5 °C), and 6 (~ 18%) found evidence of 'marked' hyperthermia (peak Tc of 39.5 °C or greater) during intermittent sports competition. Conclusions: Practitioners and coaches supporting intermittent sport athletes are justified to seek interventions aimed at mitigating the high heat strain observed in competition. More research is required to determine the most effective interventions for this population that are practically viable in intermittent sports settings (often constrained by many competing demands). Greater statistical power and homogeneity among studies are required to quantify the independent effects of wet bulb globe temperature, competition duration, sport and level of competition on peak Tc, all of which are likely to be key modulators of the thermal strain experienced by competing athletes. Registration: This systematic review was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vfb4s; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EZYFA, 4 January 2021). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various terms used in sport and exercise science, and medicine, are derived from other fields such as epidemiology, pharmacology and causal inference. Conceptual and nomological frameworks have described training load as a multidimensional construct manifested by two causally related subdimensions: external and internal training load. In this article, we explain how the concepts of training load and its subdimensions can be aligned to classifications used in occupational medicine and epidemiology, where exposure can also be differentiated into external and internal dose. The meanings of terms used in epidemiology such as exposure, external dose, internal dose and dose–response are therefore explored from a causal perspective and their underlying concepts are contextualised to the physical training process. We also explain how these concepts can assist in the validation process of training load measures. Specifically, to optimise training (i.e. within a causal context), a measure of exposure should be reflective of the mediating mechanisms of the primary outcome. Additionally, understanding the difference between intermediate and surrogate outcomes allows for the correct investigation of the effects of exposure measures and their interpretation in research and applied settings. Finally, whilst the dose–response relationship can provide evidence of the validity of a measure, conceptual and computational differentiation between causal (explanatory) and non-causal (descriptive and predictive) dose–response relationships is needed. Regardless of how sophisticated or "advanced" a training load measure (and metric) appears, in a causal context, if it cannot be connected to a plausible mediator of a relevant response (outcome), it is likely of little use in practice to support and optimise the training process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to scope available peer-reviewed literature published in a FIFA language to understand the current quantity of research on women's football. Five databases were searched on the 15/12/2019. Studies were included when containing original research published in a peer-reviewed journal around female competitive football of any level, any age and on any subject. Author, journal, title and abstract of all included studies were scoped. Population assessed number of participants, level of play, age level of football and publication theme(s) were extracted. A total of 1,634 articles were scoped. The oldest publication dated back to 1939, whilst a total of 202 studies were gathered from 2019. The publication theme most frequently researched was sports medicine (N = 521) followed by strength and conditioning (N = 331) and sociology (N = 299). The majority of studies has focussed on elite (N = 442), senior (N = 977) players. A continuous growth in research attention has been seen. However, the numbers are not comparable to current research output levels in men's football. This study represents an essential first step in a larger 'research agenda-setting' project to determine research priorities for women's football during the next 10 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A conceptual framework has a central role in the scientific process. Its purpose is to synthesize evidence, assist in understanding phenomena, inform future research and act as a reference operational guide in practical settings. We propose an updated conceptual framework intended to facilitate the validation and interpretation of physical training measures. This revised conceptual framework was constructed through a process of qualitative analysis involving a synthesis of the literature, analysis and integration with existing frameworks (Banister and PerPot models). We identified, expanded, and integrated four constructs that are important in the conceptualization of the process and outcomes of physical training. These are: (1) formal introduction of a new measurable component 'training effects', a higher-order construct resulting from the combined effect of four possible responses (acute and chronic, positive and negative); (2) explanation, clarification and examples of training effect measures such as performance, physiological, subjective and other measures (cognitive, biomechanical, etc.); (3) integration of the sport performance outcome continuum (from performance improvements to overtraining); (4) extension and definition of the network of linkages (uni and bidirectional) between individual and contextual factors and other constructs. Additionally, we provided constitutive and operational definitions, and examples of theoretical and practical applications of the framework. These include validation and conceptualization of constructs (e.g., performance readiness), and understanding of higher-order constructs, such as training tolerance, when monitoring training to adapt it to individual responses and effects. This proposed conceptual framework provides an overarching model that may help understand and guide the development, validation, implementation and interpretation of measures used for athlete monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a lack of detailed information about habitual physical activity levels and the sports participation of patients after total ankle arthroplasty. Hypothesis: The proportion of sports active patients increases after total ankle arthroplasty, and the majority of patients will meet current recommendations for health-enhancing physical activity. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The authors assessed the pre- and postoperative participation in sports and recreational activities of 101 patients at a mean of 3.7 years after total ankle arthroplasty. Activity levels were determined with use of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was used to quantify habitual physical activity levels and to calculate the proportion of patients meeting current guidelines for health-enhancing physical activity. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score was used as the clinical outcome measure. Radiographs were studied for tibial and talar radiolucencies, and any association between radiolucencies, activity levels, and sports participation was determined. Results: Preoperatively, 62.4% of the patients were active in sports; 66.3% were active after surgery (P = .56). The patients were active in 3.0 ± 1.8 different sports and recreational activities preoperatively and in 3.0 ± 1.6 activities after surgery (P = 1.0). The sports frequency remained unchanged, with 2.0 ± 1.6 sessions per week before total ankle arthroplasty and 2.3 ± 1.7 sessions per week postoperatively (P = .19). Overall, the patients were active in sports and recreation for 3.9 ± 3.8 hours per week preoperatively, and for 4.7 ± 3.9 hours per week after surgery (P = .14). The most common disciplines after total ankle arthroplasty were swimming, cycling, and fitness/weight training. Sixty-five percent of the patients stated that surgery had improved their sports ability. The UCLA activity levels increased significantly from 4.3 ± 2.2 to 6.2 ± 1.6 (P < .001); AOFAS scores also improved significantly from 45.5 ± 16.6 to 84.3 ± 13.3 (P < .001). Patients suffering from posttraumatic ankle osteoarthritis were less satisfied with surgery than those with primary or inflammatory ankle osteoarthritis. Seventy-nine percent of the patients met the current guidelines for health-enhancing physical activity according to the IPAQ. Neither sports participation nor activity levels were associated with the presence of periprosthetic radiolucencies. Conclusion: Two-thirds of the patients were active in sports after total ankle arthroplasty, and the majority of the patients met current health-enhancing physical activity recommendations. The clinical outcome as determined by AOFAS scores and the patient satisfaction were favorable. The present study found no association between sports participation, increased physical activity levels, and the appearance of periprosthetic radiolucencies 3.7 years after total ankle arthroplasty. However, these results have to be confirmed after longer follow-up, in particular of those patients regularly participating in sports with higher impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the validity and reliability of the vertical jump force test (VJFT) in assessing bilateral strength asymmetry in athletes. VJFT has a formula that calculates bilateral strength asymmetry that results to either a positive sign, which indicates a strong right leg, or a negative sign, which indicates a stronger left leg. The study correlates VJFT to other tests and examines the effect of rehabilitation on bilateral strength asymmetry after unilateral knee surgery. Results showed significant correlations between VJFT and other tests such as the isometric leg press test and the isokinetic leg extension test. VJFT was tolerated by athletes recovering from unilateral knee surgery. The study concludes that VJFT is valid and reliable, and can be applied in sports medicine.

The article offers information about a study which examines the construct validity of the 7-point Likert scale muscle soreness, assessing its relationship with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). It also aims to investigate its sensitivity as measure of symptom of eccentric-contraction muscle damage. The study involves self-administered questionnaires collected from 26 soccer players, with 4-week preseason training camp, including high-intensity plyometric training sessions. Detailed information regarding the methods and analysis used in the study, as well as the results, is discussed.