与跑步有关的伤害的定义和监测方法:范围界定审查

Aisling Lacey, Enda Whyte, Sarah Dillon, Siobhán O’Connor, Aoife Burke, Kieran Moran
{"title":"与跑步有关的伤害的定义和监测方法:范围界定审查","authors":"Aisling Lacey,&nbsp;Enda Whyte,&nbsp;Sarah Dillon,&nbsp;Siobhán O’Connor,&nbsp;Aoife Burke,&nbsp;Kieran Moran","doi":"10.1002/ejsc.12123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Inconsistent and restricted definitions of injury have contributed to limitations in determining injury rates and identifying risk factors for running-related injuries (RRIs). The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the definitions and surveillance methods of RRIs. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and June 2023 which investigated RRIs in adult running populations, providing a definition for a general RRI. Results were extracted and collated. 204 articles were included. Three primary criteria were used to define RRIs: physical description, effect on training and medical intervention, while three secondary criteria are also associated with definitions: cause/onset of injury, location, and social consequences. Further descriptors and sub-descriptors form these criteria. The use of Boolean operators resulted in nine variations in definitions. Inconsistency is evident among definitions of RRIs. Injury definitions seem to be important for two main reasons: firstly, determining accurate injury rates, and secondly, in research examining risk factors. For the latter, definitions seem to be very limited, only capturing severe injuries and failing to recognise the full development process of RRIs, precluding the identification of conclusive risk factors. A potential two-approach solution is the initial use of a broad definition acting as a gatekeeper for identifying any potential injury, and follow-up with an extensive surveillance tool to capture the specific consequences of the varying severity of RRIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":93999,"journal":{"name":"European journal of sport science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsc.12123","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Definitions and surveillance methods of running-related injuries: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Aisling Lacey,&nbsp;Enda Whyte,&nbsp;Sarah Dillon,&nbsp;Siobhán O’Connor,&nbsp;Aoife Burke,&nbsp;Kieran Moran\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejsc.12123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Inconsistent and restricted definitions of injury have contributed to limitations in determining injury rates and identifying risk factors for running-related injuries (RRIs). The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the definitions and surveillance methods of RRIs. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and June 2023 which investigated RRIs in adult running populations, providing a definition for a general RRI. Results were extracted and collated. 204 articles were included. Three primary criteria were used to define RRIs: physical description, effect on training and medical intervention, while three secondary criteria are also associated with definitions: cause/onset of injury, location, and social consequences. Further descriptors and sub-descriptors form these criteria. The use of Boolean operators resulted in nine variations in definitions. Inconsistency is evident among definitions of RRIs. Injury definitions seem to be important for two main reasons: firstly, determining accurate injury rates, and secondly, in research examining risk factors. For the latter, definitions seem to be very limited, only capturing severe injuries and failing to recognise the full development process of RRIs, precluding the identification of conclusive risk factors. A potential two-approach solution is the initial use of a broad definition acting as a gatekeeper for identifying any potential injury, and follow-up with an extensive surveillance tool to capture the specific consequences of the varying severity of RRIs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of sport science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsc.12123\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of sport science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of sport science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于对伤害的定义不一致且存在限制,导致在确定伤害率和识别跑步相关伤害(RRIs)的风险因素方面存在局限性。本次范围界定审查旨在调查 RRIs 的定义和监测方法。我们使用 PubMed、Scopus、SPORTDiscuss、MEDLINE 和 Web of Science 数据库进行了系统的电子检索。所纳入的研究均为 1980 年 1 月至 2023 年 6 月间发表的英文研究,这些研究调查了成人跑步人群中的 RRI,并提供了一般 RRI 的定义。对研究结果进行了提取和整理。共纳入 204 篇文章。对 RRI 的定义采用了三个主要标准:身体描述、对训练的影响和医疗干预,同时还采用了三个次要标准:受伤的原因/起因、地点和社会后果。进一步的描述符和次级描述符构成了这些标准。布尔运算符的使用导致了九种不同的定义。RRI 定义之间的不一致性显而易见。伤害定义之所以重要,主要有两个原因:第一,确定准确的伤害率;第二,研究风险因素。就后者而言,定义似乎非常有限,只能捕捉到严重的伤害,无法认识到 RRI 的整个发展过程,也就无法确定决定性的风险因素。一个潜在的双管齐下的解决方案是,首先使用一个广泛的定义,作为识别任何潜在伤害的把关人,然后使用一个广泛的监测工具来捕捉不同严重程度的 RRI 的具体后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Definitions and surveillance methods of running-related injuries: A scoping review

Definitions and surveillance methods of running-related injuries: A scoping review

Inconsistent and restricted definitions of injury have contributed to limitations in determining injury rates and identifying risk factors for running-related injuries (RRIs). The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the definitions and surveillance methods of RRIs. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and June 2023 which investigated RRIs in adult running populations, providing a definition for a general RRI. Results were extracted and collated. 204 articles were included. Three primary criteria were used to define RRIs: physical description, effect on training and medical intervention, while three secondary criteria are also associated with definitions: cause/onset of injury, location, and social consequences. Further descriptors and sub-descriptors form these criteria. The use of Boolean operators resulted in nine variations in definitions. Inconsistency is evident among definitions of RRIs. Injury definitions seem to be important for two main reasons: firstly, determining accurate injury rates, and secondly, in research examining risk factors. For the latter, definitions seem to be very limited, only capturing severe injuries and failing to recognise the full development process of RRIs, precluding the identification of conclusive risk factors. A potential two-approach solution is the initial use of a broad definition acting as a gatekeeper for identifying any potential injury, and follow-up with an extensive surveillance tool to capture the specific consequences of the varying severity of RRIs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信