Timpka, T; Jacobsson, J; Ekberg, J; Finch, C F; Bichenbach, J; Edouard, P; Bargoria, V; Branco, P; Alonso, J M
In: Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 643–650, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: accident, athletic performance, clinical examination, competition, Concussion, Consensus, Epidemiologic Methods, epidemiological data, EPIDEMIOLOGY, football, head injury, health service, human, Humans, information processing, Injuries, Medline, meta analysis, METHODOLOGY, musculoskeletal disease, neck injury, nomenclature, Overuse injuries, physical education, procedures, Qualitative methods, Research Design, Review, self report, sport injury, Sports epidemiology, sports injury, SPORTS medicine, Systematic Review, tennis, Terminology, Terminology as Topic, track and field, training
@article{Timpka2015,
title = {Meta-narrative analysis of sports injury reporting practices based on the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF): A review of consensus statements and epidemiological studies in athletics (track and field)},
author = {Timpka, T and Jacobsson, J and Ekberg, J and Finch, C F and Bichenbach, J and Edouard, P and Bargoria, V and Branco, P and Alonso, J M},
doi = {10.1016/j.jsams.2014.11.393},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Journal of Science \& Medicine in Sport},
volume = {18},
number = {6},
pages = {643--650},
abstract = {Objectives: Consistency in routines for reporting injury has been a focus of development efforts in sports epidemiology for a long time. To gain an improved understanding of current reporting practices, we applied the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF) in a review of injury reporting in a subset of the field. Design: Meta-narrative review. Methods: An analysis of injury definitions reported in consensus statements for different sports and studies of injury epidemiology in athletics (track and field) published in PubMed between 1980 and 2013 was performed. Separate narratives for each of the three reporting contexts in the IDCF were constructed from the data. Results: Six consensus statements and 14 studies reporting on athletics injury epidemiology fulfilled the selection criteria. The narratives on sports performance, clinical examination, and athlete self-report contexts were evenly represented in the eligible studies. The sports performance and athlete self-report narratives covered both professional and community athletes as well as training and competition settings. In the clinical examination narrative, data collection by health service professionals was linked to studies of professional athletes at international championships. Conclusions: From an application of the IDCF in a review of injury reporting in sports epidemiology we observed a parallel usage of reporting contexts in this field of research. The co-existence of reporting methodologies does not necessarily reflect a problematic situation, but only provided that firm precautions are taken when comparing studies performed in the different contexts. © 2014 Sports Medicine Australia.},
keywords = {accident, athletic performance, clinical examination, competition, Concussion, Consensus, Epidemiologic Methods, epidemiological data, EPIDEMIOLOGY, football, head injury, health service, human, Humans, information processing, Injuries, Medline, meta analysis, METHODOLOGY, musculoskeletal disease, neck injury, nomenclature, Overuse injuries, physical education, procedures, Qualitative methods, Research Design, Review, self report, sport injury, Sports epidemiology, sports injury, SPORTS medicine, Systematic Review, tennis, Terminology, Terminology as Topic, track and field, training},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Fuller, C W; Jones, R; Fuller, A D
Defining a safe player run-off zone around rugby union playing areas Journal Article
In: Injury Prevention, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 309–313, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Accident prevention, Athletic Injuries, brain concussion, Competitive Behavior, Environment Design, environmental planning, exercise, football, human, Humans, Incidence, Male, Physical Conditioning, physical education, Physical Education and Training, procedures, risk factor, Risk Factors, Sprains and Strains, VIDEO recording, videorecording
@article{Fuller2015ab,
title = {Defining a safe player run-off zone around rugby union playing areas},
author = {Fuller, C W and Jones, R and Fuller, A D},
doi = {10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041587},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Injury Prevention},
volume = {21},
number = {5},
pages = {309--313},
abstract = {Objectives To identify the circumstances in which international rugby players exit the playing area during match activities and to define a safe run-off distance around the playing area. Method An observational study using video recordings of 102 matches associated with the Rugby World Cup (2011), Rugby Championship (2013, 2014) and Six Nations Championship (2013, 2014) were used to analyse every event in which one or more players exited the playing area during normal match activities. The circumstances in which a player exited the playing area were categorised using a range of parameters: playing position, location, out-of-play region, match activity, distance travelled over the touchline, contacts made with pitchside fixtures and fittings. Results Ninety-five per cent of player-excursions took place within 5.2 m of the touchline. Players exiting the playing area were nearly three times more likely to be a back than a forward (p\<0.001) and the event was more likely to take place when a team was defending than attacking (p\<0.001). Being forced out of play during a contact event (70%) was the major reason for players exiting the playing area. Most players (88%) exiting the playing area only made contact with the perimeter area surface; a small proportion of players contacted touchline flags (6.1%), advertising boards (2.3%) and TV cameras/equipment (1.0%). Conclusions A minimum hazard-free distance of 5 m around a Rugby pitch is proposed based on the 95% percentile frequency distribution of player-excursion events into the areas contiguous with the playing area. © 2015 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {Accident prevention, Athletic Injuries, brain concussion, Competitive Behavior, Environment Design, environmental planning, exercise, football, human, Humans, Incidence, Male, Physical Conditioning, physical education, Physical Education and Training, procedures, risk factor, Risk Factors, Sprains and Strains, VIDEO recording, videorecording},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Timpka, T; Jacobsson, J; Ekberg, J; Finch, C F; Bichenbach, J; Edouard, P; Bargoria, V; Branco, P; Alonso, J M
In: Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 643–650, 2015.
@article{Timpka2015,
title = {Meta-narrative analysis of sports injury reporting practices based on the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF): A review of consensus statements and epidemiological studies in athletics (track and field)},
author = {Timpka, T and Jacobsson, J and Ekberg, J and Finch, C F and Bichenbach, J and Edouard, P and Bargoria, V and Branco, P and Alonso, J M},
doi = {10.1016/j.jsams.2014.11.393},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Journal of Science \& Medicine in Sport},
volume = {18},
number = {6},
pages = {643--650},
abstract = {Objectives: Consistency in routines for reporting injury has been a focus of development efforts in sports epidemiology for a long time. To gain an improved understanding of current reporting practices, we applied the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF) in a review of injury reporting in a subset of the field. Design: Meta-narrative review. Methods: An analysis of injury definitions reported in consensus statements for different sports and studies of injury epidemiology in athletics (track and field) published in PubMed between 1980 and 2013 was performed. Separate narratives for each of the three reporting contexts in the IDCF were constructed from the data. Results: Six consensus statements and 14 studies reporting on athletics injury epidemiology fulfilled the selection criteria. The narratives on sports performance, clinical examination, and athlete self-report contexts were evenly represented in the eligible studies. The sports performance and athlete self-report narratives covered both professional and community athletes as well as training and competition settings. In the clinical examination narrative, data collection by health service professionals was linked to studies of professional athletes at international championships. Conclusions: From an application of the IDCF in a review of injury reporting in sports epidemiology we observed a parallel usage of reporting contexts in this field of research. The co-existence of reporting methodologies does not necessarily reflect a problematic situation, but only provided that firm precautions are taken when comparing studies performed in the different contexts. © 2014 Sports Medicine Australia.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Fuller, C W; Jones, R; Fuller, A D
Defining a safe player run-off zone around rugby union playing areas Journal Article
In: Injury Prevention, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 309–313, 2015.
@article{Fuller2015ab,
title = {Defining a safe player run-off zone around rugby union playing areas},
author = {Fuller, C W and Jones, R and Fuller, A D},
doi = {10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041587},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Injury Prevention},
volume = {21},
number = {5},
pages = {309--313},
abstract = {Objectives To identify the circumstances in which international rugby players exit the playing area during match activities and to define a safe run-off distance around the playing area. Method An observational study using video recordings of 102 matches associated with the Rugby World Cup (2011), Rugby Championship (2013, 2014) and Six Nations Championship (2013, 2014) were used to analyse every event in which one or more players exited the playing area during normal match activities. The circumstances in which a player exited the playing area were categorised using a range of parameters: playing position, location, out-of-play region, match activity, distance travelled over the touchline, contacts made with pitchside fixtures and fittings. Results Ninety-five per cent of player-excursions took place within 5.2 m of the touchline. Players exiting the playing area were nearly three times more likely to be a back than a forward (p\<0.001) and the event was more likely to take place when a team was defending than attacking (p\<0.001). Being forced out of play during a contact event (70%) was the major reason for players exiting the playing area. Most players (88%) exiting the playing area only made contact with the perimeter area surface; a small proportion of players contacted touchline flags (6.1%), advertising boards (2.3%) and TV cameras/equipment (1.0%). Conclusions A minimum hazard-free distance of 5 m around a Rugby pitch is proposed based on the 95% percentile frequency distribution of player-excursion events into the areas contiguous with the playing area. © 2015 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Timpka, T; Jacobsson, J; Ekberg, J; Finch, C F; Bichenbach, J; Edouard, P; Bargoria, V; Branco, P; Alonso, J M
In: Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 643–650, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: accident, athletic performance, clinical examination, competition, Concussion, Consensus, Epidemiologic Methods, epidemiological data, EPIDEMIOLOGY, football, head injury, health service, human, Humans, information processing, Injuries, Medline, meta analysis, METHODOLOGY, musculoskeletal disease, neck injury, nomenclature, Overuse injuries, physical education, procedures, Qualitative methods, Research Design, Review, self report, sport injury, Sports epidemiology, sports injury, SPORTS medicine, Systematic Review, tennis, Terminology, Terminology as Topic, track and field, training
@article{Timpka2015,
title = {Meta-narrative analysis of sports injury reporting practices based on the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF): A review of consensus statements and epidemiological studies in athletics (track and field)},
author = {Timpka, T and Jacobsson, J and Ekberg, J and Finch, C F and Bichenbach, J and Edouard, P and Bargoria, V and Branco, P and Alonso, J M},
doi = {10.1016/j.jsams.2014.11.393},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Journal of Science \& Medicine in Sport},
volume = {18},
number = {6},
pages = {643--650},
abstract = {Objectives: Consistency in routines for reporting injury has been a focus of development efforts in sports epidemiology for a long time. To gain an improved understanding of current reporting practices, we applied the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF) in a review of injury reporting in a subset of the field. Design: Meta-narrative review. Methods: An analysis of injury definitions reported in consensus statements for different sports and studies of injury epidemiology in athletics (track and field) published in PubMed between 1980 and 2013 was performed. Separate narratives for each of the three reporting contexts in the IDCF were constructed from the data. Results: Six consensus statements and 14 studies reporting on athletics injury epidemiology fulfilled the selection criteria. The narratives on sports performance, clinical examination, and athlete self-report contexts were evenly represented in the eligible studies. The sports performance and athlete self-report narratives covered both professional and community athletes as well as training and competition settings. In the clinical examination narrative, data collection by health service professionals was linked to studies of professional athletes at international championships. Conclusions: From an application of the IDCF in a review of injury reporting in sports epidemiology we observed a parallel usage of reporting contexts in this field of research. The co-existence of reporting methodologies does not necessarily reflect a problematic situation, but only provided that firm precautions are taken when comparing studies performed in the different contexts. © 2014 Sports Medicine Australia.},
keywords = {accident, athletic performance, clinical examination, competition, Concussion, Consensus, Epidemiologic Methods, epidemiological data, EPIDEMIOLOGY, football, head injury, health service, human, Humans, information processing, Injuries, Medline, meta analysis, METHODOLOGY, musculoskeletal disease, neck injury, nomenclature, Overuse injuries, physical education, procedures, Qualitative methods, Research Design, Review, self report, sport injury, Sports epidemiology, sports injury, SPORTS medicine, Systematic Review, tennis, Terminology, Terminology as Topic, track and field, training},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Fuller, C W; Jones, R; Fuller, A D
Defining a safe player run-off zone around rugby union playing areas Journal Article
In: Injury Prevention, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 309–313, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Accident prevention, Athletic Injuries, brain concussion, Competitive Behavior, Environment Design, environmental planning, exercise, football, human, Humans, Incidence, Male, Physical Conditioning, physical education, Physical Education and Training, procedures, risk factor, Risk Factors, Sprains and Strains, VIDEO recording, videorecording
@article{Fuller2015ab,
title = {Defining a safe player run-off zone around rugby union playing areas},
author = {Fuller, C W and Jones, R and Fuller, A D},
doi = {10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041587},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Injury Prevention},
volume = {21},
number = {5},
pages = {309--313},
abstract = {Objectives To identify the circumstances in which international rugby players exit the playing area during match activities and to define a safe run-off distance around the playing area. Method An observational study using video recordings of 102 matches associated with the Rugby World Cup (2011), Rugby Championship (2013, 2014) and Six Nations Championship (2013, 2014) were used to analyse every event in which one or more players exited the playing area during normal match activities. The circumstances in which a player exited the playing area were categorised using a range of parameters: playing position, location, out-of-play region, match activity, distance travelled over the touchline, contacts made with pitchside fixtures and fittings. Results Ninety-five per cent of player-excursions took place within 5.2 m of the touchline. Players exiting the playing area were nearly three times more likely to be a back than a forward (p\<0.001) and the event was more likely to take place when a team was defending than attacking (p\<0.001). Being forced out of play during a contact event (70%) was the major reason for players exiting the playing area. Most players (88%) exiting the playing area only made contact with the perimeter area surface; a small proportion of players contacted touchline flags (6.1%), advertising boards (2.3%) and TV cameras/equipment (1.0%). Conclusions A minimum hazard-free distance of 5 m around a Rugby pitch is proposed based on the 95% percentile frequency distribution of player-excursion events into the areas contiguous with the playing area. © 2015 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {Accident prevention, Athletic Injuries, brain concussion, Competitive Behavior, Environment Design, environmental planning, exercise, football, human, Humans, Incidence, Male, Physical Conditioning, physical education, Physical Education and Training, procedures, risk factor, Risk Factors, Sprains and Strains, VIDEO recording, videorecording},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}