Limitations of Separating Athletes into High or Low-Risk Groups based on a Cut-Off. A Clinical Commentary.

Abstract

Background: Athlete injury risk assessment and management is an important, yet challenging task for sport and exercise medicine professionals. A common approach to injury risk screening is to stratify athletes into risk groups based on their performance on a test relative to a cut-off threshold. However, one potential reason for ineffective injury prevention efforts is the over-reliance on identifying these 'at-risk' groups using arbitrary cut-offs for these tests and measures. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the conceptual and technical issues related to the use of a cut-off in both research and clinical practice.

Clinical question: How can we better assess and interpret clinical tests or measures to enable a more effective injury risk assessment in athletes?

Key results: Cut-offs typically lack strong biologic plausibility to support them; and are typically derived in a data-driven manner and thus not generalizable to other samples. When a cut-off is used in analyses, information is lost, leading to potentially misleading results and less accurate injury risk prediction. Dichotomizing a continuous variable using a cut-off should be avoided. Using continuous variables on its original scale is advantageous because information is not discarded, outcome prediction accuracy is not lost, and personalized medicine can be facilitated.

Clinical application: Researchers and clinicians are encouraged to analyze and interpret the results of tests and measures using continuous variables and avoid relying on singular cut-offs to guide decisions. Injury risk can be predicted more accurately when using continuous variables in their natural form. A more accurate risk prediction will facilitate personalized approaches to injury risk mitigation and may lead to a decline in injury rates.

Level of evidence: 5.