Search

OBJECTIVES: This study examined how track cycling coaches, practitioners, and athletes: develop knowledge and practices; value performance areas; and, implement research into practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: An online REDCap survey of track cycling coaches, practitioners, and athletes was conducted involving questions related to demographics, performance area importance, knowledge acquisition and application, research relevance, and research direction. RESULTS: A total of 159 responses were received from coaches (n = 55), practitioners (n = 29), and athletes (n = 75). Participants' highest track cycling competition level involvement ranged from local/regional (12.7%) to Olympic/Paralympic (39.9%). Respondents primarily develop practices by observing 'the sport' or 'others competing/working in it' (both 85.8%). Practitioners develop practices through self-guided learning (96.4%). The primary reason for practice use was prior experience (84.9%), whilst individuals were least likely to use practices resulting in marginal gains with potentially negative outcomes (27.3%). Areas of greatest perceived importance were Aerodynamics, Strength & Conditioning, and Tactics (all >96% agreed/strongly agreed). Scientific evidence for Tactics (30%) and Mental Skills (26%) was perceived to be lacking, resulting in greater reliance on personal experience (74% and 62%, respectively) to inform training decisions. The main barrier to implementing research into practice was athlete buy-in (84.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Within track cycling, informal learning was most popular amongst respondents. Greater reliance on personal experience within evidence-based practice for many performance areas aligns with limited existing research. Most respondents reported multiple barriers affecting research implementation in practice.

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.

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 participant

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.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding how injuries occur (inciting circumstances) is useful for developing etiological hypotheses and prevention strategies. The aims of this study were 1) to evaluate the feasibility of a method combining video and Global Positioning System data to estimate the speed and acceleration of activities leading to injuries and 2) to use this method to analyse the inciting circumstances leading to non-contact injuries. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study. METHODS: Injury inciting circumstances from 46 elite players over three seasons were analysed from video recordings and from external load measures collected through Catapult Vector S7 Global Positioning System. RESULTS: In total 34 non-contact injuries were analysed. Sixteen out of the seventeen hamstring injuries occurred when players were running for (median and interquartile range) 16.75 m (8.42-26.65 m) and achieved a peak speed of 29.28 km·h-1 (26.61-31.13 km·h-1) which corresponded to 87.55 % of players' maximal speed (78.5 %-89.75 %). Of the three adductor injuries, one occurred whilst the player was decelerating without the ball, one occurred whilst the player was accelerating and controlling the ball at knee level, and one occurred whilst the player was performing an instep kick. Two quadriceps injuries occurred whilst the players were kicking either whilst walking or running. CONCLUSIONS: From the preliminary results reported in this study most hamstring injuries occurred when players ran >25 km·h-1 and above 80 % of their maximal speed. This study suggests that this novel approach can allow a detailed and standardised analysis of injury inciting circumstances.

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive examination of the sport-specific activities and circumstances being performed at the time of injury is important to hypothesise mechanisms, develop prevention strategies and inform future investigations. Results reported in the literature are inconsistent because inciting activities are reported using different classifications. Hence the aim was to develop a standardised system for the reporting of inciting circumstances. METHODS: The system was developed using a modified Nominal Group Technique. The initial panel included 12 sports practitioners and researchers from four continents with respectively ≥ 5 years of experience working in professional football and/or conducting injury research. The process consisted of six phases: idea generation, two surveys, one online meeting and two confirmations. For answers to the closed questions, consensus was deemed achieved if ≥ 70% of respondents agreed. Open-ended answers were qualitatively analysed and then introduced in subsequent phases. RESULTS: Ten panellists completed the study. The risk of attrition bias was low. The developed system includes a comprehensive range of inciting circumstances across five domains: contact type, ball situation, physical activity, session details, contextual information. The system also distinguishes between a core set (essential reporting) and an optional set. The panel deemed all the domains to be important and easy to use both in football and in research environments. CONCLUSION: A system to classify inciting circumstances in football was developed. Given the extent of reporting inconsistency of inciting circumstances in the available literature, this can be used while further studies evaluate its reliability.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified that the original colours did not display correctly in Table 2. The correct table is given below. (Table presented.) Correlations between PROMIS scales and the OKS PROMIS Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; OKS Oxford Knee Score; PAIN pain intensity; PI pain interference; PF physical function; black versus grey font color: the confidence interval of the correlation does not overlap/overlaps with the preset correlation threshold aSpearman's rank correlation coefficient, rs bPearson’s correlation coefficient, r The original article [1] has been updated.

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.

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 analysi

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.

A recent paper called for the abandonment of the term load (and training load) when used outside its mechanical meaning, claiming it is "unscientific" and "breaches scientific principles." In this article, we explain why its use does not breach any scientific principles and we clarify the process of labelling, conceptualising and operationalising a construct. Training load is simply a label attributed to a higher-order construct overarching other interrelated sub-dimensions. This multi-level structure provides a framework (nomological network) to support the research process and also practical applications. Load is a word, and therefore cannot be "unscientific". The "use" or "misuse" of words and terms entirely depends upon definitions that should be based on current understanding. Misuse occurs when a term is decontextualised or interpreted according to a unilateral perspective. The field of mechanics does not have a monopoly on the term load (or other common terms such as work, stress and fatigue), which are legitimately used in many scientific areas and with various meanings. The 'obligation' to rely on terms abiding by the Système International d'Unités (SI) when describing a construct is inappropriate. The SI relates to how we can measure, not describe training load; i.e., SI is relevant to its operational and not its constitutive (descriptive) definition. Discussions regarding shared and standardised descriptions and definitions are more relevant than discussions about discarding terms in sport and exercise science. Researchers (and practitioners) can continue to use the term training load as it does not breach any scientific principles.

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive examination of the sport-specific activities performed around the time of injury is important to hypothesise injury mechanisms, develop prevention strategies, improve management, and inform future investigations. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature describing the activities performed around the time of injury in football (soccer). METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and OpenGrey. Studies were included if participants were football players aged > 13 years old and the activities performed at the time of injury were reported together with the total number of injuries. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of checklists developed for prevalence studies. The activities reported by the studies were grouped to account for inconsistent reporting, and the proportion of each injury activity was calculated. Data were not meta-analysed due to high heterogeneity of methods and classification criteria. RESULTS: We included 64 studies reporting on 56,740 injuries in total. ACL injures were analysed by 12 studies, ankle/foot and knee injuries were analysed by five studies, thigh injuries were analysed by four studies, hip/groin injuries were analysed by three studies, and hamstring injuries were analysed by two studies. Five studies analysed more than one type of injury and 38 studies did not specify the type of injuries analysed. Running and kicking were the predominant activities leading to thigh and hamstring injuries. Changing direction and kicking were the predominant activities leading to hip and groin injuries and duels were the predominant activities leading to ankle injuries. Duels and pressing seem the predominant activities leading to ACL injuries, while results for other knee and general injuries were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: A qualitative summary of the activities performed at the time of injury has been reported. The results need to be inter

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of recreational football performed once (LOW) vs. twice (MOD) a week on cardiovascular risk factors in healthy, sedentary men. Body composition, resting blood pressure, blood lipid profile and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) were measured at baseline, after a 12-week control and training period, using an interrupted time-series study (study 1, n = 18: n = 8, LOW and n = 10, MOD) nested in a randomized parallel trial (study 2, n = 34: n = 18 LOW and n = 16 MOD). After the intervention in study 1, LDL-cholesterol (-12.3 mg·dL-1 [-22.7 to -2.0]) and VO2max (4.5 ml·kg-1·min-1 [1.2-7.8 ]) changed in LOW whereas differences were found in weight (-2.1 kg [-3.7 to -0.4]), BMI (-0.7 kg·m-2 [-1.2 to -0.1]), total cholesterol (-22.2 mg·dL-1 [-36.0 to -8.4]), no-HDL-cholesterol (-17.5 mg·dL-1 [-30.5 to -4.5]), LDL-cholesterol (-14.9 mg·dL-1 [-23.6 to -6.2]) and VO2max (5.7 ml·kg-1·min-1 [2.8-8.6]) in MOD. Study 2 showed no evidence of differences between groups. Our results therefore suggest positive health effects of recreational football even when performed at low frequency as it can happen in real context.Highlights Moderate and high amount of recreational football practice (i.e. 2 or 3 h a week) have been shown to be effective to improve health-related factors in both healthy and unhealthy people.Scarce data are present regarding the effect of a low frequency of recreational football practice (i.e. 1 h a week) that is often usual in a real context.Our results showed the practice of recreational football, once a week, is effective for improving some cardiovascular risk factors (maximal oxygen consumption and LDL-cholesterol) in sedentary, healthy middle-aged men.Moreover, practising recreational football once or twice a week seems to lead to similar positive health adaptations.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the effect of peer presence on session rating of perceived exertion (RPE) responses. METHOD: Fourteen males, with mean (SD) age 22.4 (3.9) years, peak oxygen uptake 48.0 (6.6) mL·kg-1·min-1, and peak power output 330 (44) W, completed an incremental cycling test and 3 identical experimental sessions, in groups of 4 or 5. Experimental sessions involved 24 minutes of cycling, whereby the work rate alternated between 40% and 70% peak power output every 3 minutes. During cycling, heart rate was collected every 3 minutes, and session-RPE was recorded 10 minutes after cycling, in 3 communication contexts: in written form unaccompanied (intrapersonal communication), verbally by the researcher only (interpersonal communication), and in the presence of the training group. Session-RPE was analyzed using ordinal regression and heart rate using a linear mixed-effects model, with models fit in a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: Session-RPE was voted higher when collected in the group's presence compared with when written (odds ratio = 4.26, 95% credible interval = 1.27-14.73). On average, the posterior probability that session-RPE was higher in the group setting than when written was .53. Session-RPE was not different between the group and verbal, or verbal and written collection contexts. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that contextual psychosocial inputs influence session-RPE and highlights the importance of session-RPE users controlling the measurement environment when collecting votes.

Analysis of key performance indicators (KPIs) in team sports has frequently involved multiple univariate analyses and modelling of direct associations between each KPI and match outcomes. This study aimed to show a more appropriate framework and modelling process to establish causal plausibility for future confirmatory studies. A cross-sectional design was adopted, using 337 team-match observations of Australian Super Rugby performances. A tentative model was developed in consultation with a domain expert (national analyst) and analysed using piecewise structural equation modelling. Model fit was assessed using Fisher's C and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Hypothesised relationships were modelled using linear mixed effects models and unmodelled pathways were investigated using tests of directed separation. The model was an acceptable fit overall, and adjustments were identified in collaboration with the national head analyst, improving the AIC from 127.15 to 120.77 (Fisher's C = 66.78; p = 0.382). Modelling the hierarchical data structure and developing models that contain more logical hypothesised associations (in consultation with domain experts) is a more useful and important step to analyse and interpret effects of KPIs on team performance. This analysis provides support to the plausibility of the causal structure and generation of new and more precise hypotheses.

This study investigated the variability in the worst-case scenario (WCS) and suggested a framework to improve the definition and guide further investigation. Optical tracking data from 26 male players across 38 matches were analysed to determine the WCS for total distance, high-speed running (>5.5 m.s-1) and sprinting (>7.0 m.s-1) using a 3-minute rolling window. Position, total output, previous epoch, match half, time of occurrence, classification of starter vs substitute, and minutes played were modelled as selected contextual factors hypothesized to have associations with the WCS. Linear mixed effects models were used to account for cross-sectional observations and repeated measures. Unexplained variance remained high (total distance R2 = 0.53, high-speed running R2 = 0.53 and sprinting R2 = 0.40). Intra-individual variability was also high (total distance CV = 4.6-8.2%; high-speed CV = 15.6-37.8% and Sprinting CV = 21.1-76.4%). The WCS defined as the maximal physical load in a given time-window, produces unstable metrics lacking context, with high variability. Furthermore, training drills targetting this metric concurrently across players may not have representative designs and may underprepare athletes for complete match demands and multifaceted WCS scenarios. Using WCS as benchmarks (reproducing similar physical activity for training purposes) is conceptually questionable.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Registration

Causal pathways between training loads and the mechanisms of tissue damage and athletic injury are poorly understood. Here, the relation between specific training load measures and metrics, and causal pathways of gradual onset and traumatic injury are examined. Currently, a wide variety of internal and external training load measures and metrics exist, with many of these being commonly utilized to evaluate injury risk. These measures and metrics can conceptually be related to athletic injury through the mechanical load-response pathway, the psycho-physiological load-response pathway, or both. However, the contributions of these pathways to injury vary. Importantly, tissue fatigue damage and trauma through the mechanical load-response pathway is poorly understood. Furthermore, considerable challenges in quantifying this pathway exist within applied settings, evidenced by a notable absence of validation between current training load measures and tissue-level mechanical loads. Within this context, the accurate quantification of mechanical loads holds considerable importance for the estimation of tissue damage and the development of more thorough understandings of injury risk. Despite internal load measures of psycho-physiological load speculatively being conceptually linked to athletic injury through training intensity and the effects of psycho-physiological fatigue, these measures are likely too far removed from injury causation to provide meaningful, reliable relationships with injury. Finally, we used a common training load metric as a case study to show how the absence of a sound conceptual rationale and spurious links to causal mechanisms can disclose the weaknesses of candidate measures as tools for altering the likelihood of injuries, aiding the future development of more refined injury risk assessment methods.

Objectives The Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) has been strongly recommended to reduce hamstring injuries in previous meta-analyses (50% reduction in risk of injury). To underline the importance and impact of adopting appropriate methodology for evidence synthesis, we revisited the study selection, reanalyzed and updated the findings of the most recent meta-analysis. Study Design and Setting Only randomized control trials (RCT) using NHE as one of the prevention arms were selected. Summary effects for risk ratios (RR) for original studies included in the earlier meta-analysis, and new studies identified (update), were re-estimated under the random-effects model and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals (PI). Tentative recommendations were provided according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results Only five RCTs out of the 15 studies included in the earlier meta-analysis randomized to NHE. Our update revealed one additional RCT. The point estimate (RR) for the five RCTs previously considered RCTs was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.20–1.52; 95% PI, 0.06–5.14, parametric, and 0.13–1.80, nonparametric). After the update, the RR was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.27–1.29; 95% PI 0.10–3.29, parametric, and 0.17–1.52, nonparametric). Conclusion Contrary to the conclusions of a recent meta-analysis, as well as earlier meta-analyses, by using more appropriate methodology, the evidence underpinning the protective effect of NHE so far remains inconclusive and mostly derived from high risk of bias RCTs. At best, only conditional recommendation can be provided (for soccer) and future RCTs are warranted.

The 1st International Hip-related Pain Research Network meeting discussed four prioritised themes concerning hip-related pain in young to middle-aged adults: (1) diagnosis and classification of hip-related pain; (2) patient-reported outcome measures for hip-related pain; (3) measurement of physical capacity for hip-related pain; (4) physiotherapist-led treatment for hip-related pain. Thirty-eight expert researchers and clinicians working in the field of hip-related pain attended the meeting. This manuscript relates to the theme of physiotherapist-led treatments for hip-related pain. A systematic review on the efficacy of physiotherapist-led interventions for hip-related pain (published separately) was conducted and found that strong evidence for physiotherapist-led treatments was lacking. Prior to the meeting, draft consensus recommendations for consideration in the meeting were also developed based on the systematic review. The draft consensus recommendations were presented to all of the meeting participants via email, at least 1 week prior to the meeting. At the meeting, these recommendations were discussed, revised and voted on. Six recommendations for clinical practice and five recommendations for research were included and all gained consensus. Recommendations for clinical practice were that (i) Exercise-based treatments are recommended for people with hip-related pain. (ii) Exercise-based treatment should be at least 3 months duration. (iii) Physiotherapist-led rehabilitation after hip surgery should be undertaken. (iv) Patient-reported outcome measures, measures of physical impairment and measures of psychosocial factors should be used to monitor response to treatment. (v) Physical activity (that may include sport) is recommended for people with hip-related pain. (vi) Clinicians should discuss patient expectations, use shared-decision making and provide education. Recommendations for research were (i) Reporting of exercise programmes: Exercise descriptors suc