You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 52, Issue 17
  • So you want to understand subsequent injuries better? Start by understanding the minimum data collection and reporting requirements

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
So you want to understand subsequent injuries better? Start by understanding the minimum data collection and reporting requirements
  1. Caroline F Finch,
  2. Lauren V Fortington
  1. Australian Centre for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention (ACRISP), Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Prof Caroline F Finch, Australian Centre for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention (ACRISP), Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia; c.finch{at}federation.edu.au

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098225

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the importance of adequately describing multiple and subsequent injuries in sports injury datasets.1 2 Such information is needed to answer questions such as:

    • Why are some people who play sport injured repeatedly?

    • Why do some people have recurrent injury over a sports season or in a consecutive one?

    • Why do some people repeatedly injure the same body part, whereas others sustain injuries to different parts of their body?

    Sports medicine professionals will often consider these questions when athletes present with certain injury profiles. When diagnosing injuries and determining suitable rehabilitation and recovery programmes, sports medicine professionals need to make links between the past, the present and the expected future injury outcomes. Suspecting links and decision making in relation to them should be evidence informed. Epidemiologists also ask similar questions at a broader level across populations or groups of athletes. Epidemiological answers to the above questions can provide important evidence to inform and underpin clinical decision making, but only when based on relevant and robust data. This editorial proposes a …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Both authors contributed to the content and text of the paper. LVF presented the talk at the 2017 IOC Conference on behalf of CFF.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement There are no data to share.