Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Study Designs and Potential Biases in Sports Injury Research

The Case-Control Study

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Several different epidemiological study designs can be used for aetiological investigations of potential risk factors for the occurrence of sports injuries. The case-control study is an example of a retrospective design in which the investi-gator starts with the classification of injury status (case or control) and obtains information regarding prior exposure to risk factors. Several decisions need to be made when designing case-control studies. Firstly, the source of the study participants needs to be considered. Cases and controls need to be identified from the same source, i.e. same sport or clinic. Secondly, the same eligibility criteria need to be applied to potential cases and controls. Thirdly, when an injury occurred must be established. The fourth issue concerns the status of cases (incident or prevalent cases). Finally, the number and size of the control groups needs to be determined.

Strengths of the case-control study design are the high level of information obtained, the relatively low cost and its usefulness for studying rare sports injuries. The higher susceptibility to bias is one of the limitations of case-control studies. Bias in a case-control study can lead to over or underestimation of the true association between an alleged risk factor and the occurrence of sports injuries. Three types of bias have been distinguished: (i) selection bias; (ii) information bias; and (iii) confounding. Furthermore, the applicability of this type of design is limited to risk factors that remain relatively stable after the occurrence of an injury. The effect of changeable risk factors, such as quadriceps strength and range of motion, is difficult to assess since in many cases data at the time of injury are unavailable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lysens RJ, Ostyn MS, Vanden Auweele Y, et al. The accident-prone and overuse-prone profiles of the young athlete. Am J Sports Med 1989; 17: 612–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. van Mechelen W, Hlobil H, Kemper HCG. How can sports in juries be prevented? NISGZ publication no. 25E. Papendal, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  3. Walter SD, Sutton JR, McIntosh JM, et al. The aetiology of sports injuries: a review of methodologies. Sports Med 1985; 2: 47–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Walter SD, Hart LE. Application of epidemiological methods to sports and exercise science research. Exerc Sports Sci Rev 1990; 18:417–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research. Principles and quantitative methods. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ekstrand J, Gilquist J. Prevention of injuries in football players. Int J Sports Med 1984; 5: 140–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rothman KJ. Modem epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1986

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lysens RJ. Study of intrinsic risk factors in sports injuries in young adults. Doctoral thesis, Sports medicine, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  9. Marti B. Benefits and risks of running among women. An epidemiologic study. Int J Sports Med 1988; 9: 92–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson RJ, Pope MH, Weisman G, et al. Knee injury in skiing. A multifaceted approach. Am J Sports Med 1979; 7: 321–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelsey JL, Thompson WD, Evans AS. Methods in observational epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  12. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol 1. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon: IARC, Scientific Publication No. 32, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rovere GD, Bowen GS. The effectiveness of knee bracing for the prevention of sports injuries. Sports Med 1986; 3: 309–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Haddon W, Ellison AE, Carroll RE. Skiing injuries. Public Health Rep 1962; 77: 975–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Messier SP, Pittala KA. Etiologic factors associated with selected running injuries. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1988; 20: 501–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Collins K, Wagner M, Peterson K, et al. Overuse injuries in triathletes. A study of the 1986 Seafair triathlon. Am J Sports Med 1989; 17: 675–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Thompson PD, Stern MP, Williams P, et al. Death during jogging or running. A study of 18 cases. J Am Med Assoc 1979; 242: 1265–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Walter SD, Hart LE, McIntosh JM, et al. The Ontario cohort study of running-related injuries. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 2561–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Miettinen OS. Theoretical epidemiology. Principles of occurrence research in medicine. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bol E, Schmikli SL, Backx FJG, et al. Sportpressures onder de knie. Programmering van toekomstig onderzoek. Nationaal Instituut voor de Sportgezondheidszorg, Oosterbeek, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schlesselman JJ. Case-control studies. Design, conduct, analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  22. Linet MA, Brookmeyer R. Use of cancer controls in case-control cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 1–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith AH, Pearce NE, Callas PW. Cancer case-control studies with other cancers as controls. Int J Epidemiol 1988; 17: 298–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bouter LM, Knipschild PG, Volovics A. Personal and environmental factors in relation to injury risk in downhill skiing. Int J Sports Med 1989; 10: 298–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lubin JH, Hartge P. Excluding controls. Misapplications in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1984; 120: 791–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cole P. The evolving case-control study. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 15–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Disease 1979; 32:51–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Selection bias in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 1981; 113: 452–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Raphael K. Recall bias: a proposal for assessment and control. Int J Epidemiol 1987; 16: 167–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schootman M, van Mechelen W. The efficacy of preventive knee braces in football. An epidemiological assessment. Clin J Sports Med 1993; 3: 166–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moretz A, Rahkin A, Grana WA. Oklahoma high school football injury study: a preliminary report. Oklahoma State Medical Association 1978; 71: 85–8

    Google Scholar 

  32. van Mechelen W, Hlobil H, Zijlstra WP, et al. Is range of motion of the hip and ankle joint related to running injuries? A case- control study. Int J Sports Med 1992; 13: 605–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schootman M, Powell JW, Albright JP. Statistics in sports injury research. In: Delee JC, Drez D, editors. Orthopaedic sports medicine. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1994; 160–183

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  35. Powell JW, Schootman M. A multivariate risk analysis of selected playing surfaces in the National Football League: 1980 to 1989. Am J Sports Med 1992; 20: 686–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuritz SJ, Landis JR, Koch GG. A general overview of Mantel-Haenszel methods: applications and recent developments. Annu Rev Public Health 1988; 9: 123–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Greenland S, Thomas DC. On the need for the rare disease assumption in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 116: 547–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Greenland S, Thomas DG, Morgenstern H. The rare-disease assumption revisited. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 124: 869–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hogue CJR, Gaylor DW, Schulz KF. Estimators of relative risk for case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1983; 118: 396–407

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Iowa Department of Public Health, Divisions of Health Protection and Substance Abuse & Health Promotion, Lucas State Office Building, 321 East 12th Street, Des Moines, LA, 50319-0075, USA

    Mario Schootman

  2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, Injury Prevention and Research Centre, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

    John W. Powell

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

    James C. Torner

Authors
  1. Mario Schootman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John W. Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James C. Torner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schootman, M., Powell, J.W. & Torner, J.C. Study Designs and Potential Biases in Sports Injury Research. Sports Med. 18, 22–37 (1994). https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199418010-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199418010-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation