Time-to-event analysis for sports injury research part 1 : Time-varying exposures
- Nielsen, Rasmus, Bertelsen, Michael, Ramskov, Daniel, Møller, Merete, Hulme, Adam, Theisen, Daniel, Finch, Caroline, Fortington, Lauren, Mansournia, Mohammad, Parner, Erik
- Authors: Nielsen, Rasmus , Bertelsen, Michael , Ramskov, Daniel , Møller, Merete , Hulme, Adam , Theisen, Daniel , Finch, Caroline , Fortington, Lauren , Mansournia, Mohammad , Parner, Erik
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article , Review
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 53, no. 1 (2019), p. 61-68
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: 'How much change in training load is too much before injury is sustained, among different athletes?' is a key question in sports medicine and sports science. To address this question the investigator/practitioner must analyse exposure variables that change over time, such as change in training load. Very few studies have included time-varying exposures (eg, training load) and time-varying effect-measure modifiers (eg, previous injury, biomechanics, sleep/stress) when studying sports injury aetiology. Aim: To discuss advanced statistical methods suitable for the complex analysis of time-varying exposures such as changes in training load and injury-related outcomes. Content: Time-varying exposures and time-varying effect-measure modifiers can be used in time-to-event models to investigate sport injury aetiology. We address four key-questions (i) Does time-to-event modelling allow change in training load to be included as a time-varying exposure for sport injury development? (ii) Why is time-to-event analysis superior to other analytical concepts when analysing training-load related data that changes status over time? (iii) How can researchers include change in training load in a time-to-event analysis? and, (iv) Are researchers able to include other time-varying variables into time-to-event analyses? We emphasise that cleaning datasets, setting up the data, performing analyses with time-varying variables and interpreting the results is time-consuming, and requires dedication. It may need you to ask for assistance from methodological peers as the analytical approaches presented this paper require specialist knowledge and well-honed statistical skills. Conclusion: To increase knowledge about the association between changes in training load and injury, we encourage sports injury researchers to collaborate with statisticians and/or methodological epidemiologists to carefully consider applying time-to-event models to prospective sports injury data. This will ensure appropriate interpretation of time-to-event data. © 2019 Author(s).
- Authors: Nielsen, Rasmus , Bertelsen, Michael , Ramskov, Daniel , Møller, Merete , Hulme, Adam , Theisen, Daniel , Finch, Caroline , Fortington, Lauren , Mansournia, Mohammad , Parner, Erik
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article , Review
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 53, no. 1 (2019), p. 61-68
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: 'How much change in training load is too much before injury is sustained, among different athletes?' is a key question in sports medicine and sports science. To address this question the investigator/practitioner must analyse exposure variables that change over time, such as change in training load. Very few studies have included time-varying exposures (eg, training load) and time-varying effect-measure modifiers (eg, previous injury, biomechanics, sleep/stress) when studying sports injury aetiology. Aim: To discuss advanced statistical methods suitable for the complex analysis of time-varying exposures such as changes in training load and injury-related outcomes. Content: Time-varying exposures and time-varying effect-measure modifiers can be used in time-to-event models to investigate sport injury aetiology. We address four key-questions (i) Does time-to-event modelling allow change in training load to be included as a time-varying exposure for sport injury development? (ii) Why is time-to-event analysis superior to other analytical concepts when analysing training-load related data that changes status over time? (iii) How can researchers include change in training load in a time-to-event analysis? and, (iv) Are researchers able to include other time-varying variables into time-to-event analyses? We emphasise that cleaning datasets, setting up the data, performing analyses with time-varying variables and interpreting the results is time-consuming, and requires dedication. It may need you to ask for assistance from methodological peers as the analytical approaches presented this paper require specialist knowledge and well-honed statistical skills. Conclusion: To increase knowledge about the association between changes in training load and injury, we encourage sports injury researchers to collaborate with statisticians and/or methodological epidemiologists to carefully consider applying time-to-event models to prospective sports injury data. This will ensure appropriate interpretation of time-to-event data. © 2019 Author(s).
Time-to-event analysis for sports injury research part 2 : Time-varying outcomes
- Nielsen, Rasmus, Bertelsen, Michael, Ramskov, Daniel, Møller, Merete, Hulme, Adam, Theisen, Daniel, Finch, Caroline, Fortington, Lauren, Mansournia, Mohammad, Parner, Erik
- Authors: Nielsen, Rasmus , Bertelsen, Michael , Ramskov, Daniel , Møller, Merete , Hulme, Adam , Theisen, Daniel , Finch, Caroline , Fortington, Lauren , Mansournia, Mohammad , Parner, Erik
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article , Review
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 53, no. 1 (2019), p. 70-78
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: Time-to-event modelling is underutilised in sports injury research. Still, sports injury researchers have been encouraged to consider time-to-event analyses as a powerful alternative to other statistical methods. Therefore, it is important to shed light on statistical approaches suitable for analysing training load related key-questions within the sports injury domain. Content: In the present article, we illuminate: (i) the possibilities of including time-varying outcomes in time-to-event analyses, (ii) how to deal with a situation where different types of sports injuries are included in the analyses (ie, competing risks), and (iii) how to deal with the situation where multiple subsequent injuries occur in the same athlete. Conclusion: Time-to-event analyses can handle time-varying outcomes, competing risk and multiple subsequent injuries. Although powerful, time-to-event has important requirements: researchers are encouraged to carefully consider prior to any data collection that five injuries per exposure state or transition is needed to avoid conducting statistical analyses on time-to-event data leading to biased results. This requirement becomes particularly difficult to accommodate when a stratified analysis is required as the number of variables increases exponentially for each additional strata included. In future sports injury research, we need stratified analyses if the target of our research is to respond to the question: 'how much change in training load is too much before injury is sustained, among athletes with different characteristics?' Responding to this question using multiple time-varying exposures (and outcomes) requires millions of injuries. This should not be a barrier for future research, but collaborations across borders to collecting the amount of data needed seems to be an important step forward.
- Authors: Nielsen, Rasmus , Bertelsen, Michael , Ramskov, Daniel , Møller, Merete , Hulme, Adam , Theisen, Daniel , Finch, Caroline , Fortington, Lauren , Mansournia, Mohammad , Parner, Erik
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article , Review
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 53, no. 1 (2019), p. 70-78
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: Time-to-event modelling is underutilised in sports injury research. Still, sports injury researchers have been encouraged to consider time-to-event analyses as a powerful alternative to other statistical methods. Therefore, it is important to shed light on statistical approaches suitable for analysing training load related key-questions within the sports injury domain. Content: In the present article, we illuminate: (i) the possibilities of including time-varying outcomes in time-to-event analyses, (ii) how to deal with a situation where different types of sports injuries are included in the analyses (ie, competing risks), and (iii) how to deal with the situation where multiple subsequent injuries occur in the same athlete. Conclusion: Time-to-event analyses can handle time-varying outcomes, competing risk and multiple subsequent injuries. Although powerful, time-to-event has important requirements: researchers are encouraged to carefully consider prior to any data collection that five injuries per exposure state or transition is needed to avoid conducting statistical analyses on time-to-event data leading to biased results. This requirement becomes particularly difficult to accommodate when a stratified analysis is required as the number of variables increases exponentially for each additional strata included. In future sports injury research, we need stratified analyses if the target of our research is to respond to the question: 'how much change in training load is too much before injury is sustained, among athletes with different characteristics?' Responding to this question using multiple time-varying exposures (and outcomes) requires millions of injuries. This should not be a barrier for future research, but collaborations across borders to collecting the amount of data needed seems to be an important step forward.
From monocausality to systems thinking: a complementary and alternative conceptual approach for better understanding the development and prevention of sports injury
- Hulme, Adam, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Hulme, Adam , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2015
- Type: Text , Journal article , Review
- Relation: Injury Epidemiology Vol. 2, no. 1 (2015), p. 1-12
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: The science of sports injury control, including both its cause and prevention, has largely been informed by a biomedical and mechanistic model of health. Traditional scientific practice in sports injury research has routinely involved collapsing the broader socioecological landscape down in order to analyse individual-level determinants of injury - whether biomechanical and/or behavioural. This approach has made key gains for sports injury prevention research and should be further encouraged and allowed to evolve naturally. However, the public health, Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, and injury epidemiological literature more broadly, has accepted the value of a socioecological paradigm for better understanding disease and injury processes, and sports injury research will fall further behind unless it does the same. A complementary and alternative conceptual approach towards injury control known as systems thinking that builds on socioecological science, both methodologically and analytically, is readily available and fast developing in other research areas. This review outlines the historical progression of causal concepts in the field of epidemiology over the course of the modern scientific era. From here, causal concepts in injury epidemiology, and models of aetiology as found in the context of sports injury research are presented. The paper finishes by proposing a new research agenda that considers the potential for a systems thinking approach to further enhance sports injury aetiological understanding. A complementary systems paradigm, however, will require that sports injury epidemiologists bring their knowledge and skillsets forwards in an attempt to use, adapt, and even refine existing systems-based approaches. Alongside the natural development of conventional scientific methodologies and analyses in sports injury research, progressing forwards to a systems paradigm is now required. © 2015, Hulme and Finch.
- Authors: Hulme, Adam , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2015
- Type: Text , Journal article , Review
- Relation: Injury Epidemiology Vol. 2, no. 1 (2015), p. 1-12
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1058737
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: The science of sports injury control, including both its cause and prevention, has largely been informed by a biomedical and mechanistic model of health. Traditional scientific practice in sports injury research has routinely involved collapsing the broader socioecological landscape down in order to analyse individual-level determinants of injury - whether biomechanical and/or behavioural. This approach has made key gains for sports injury prevention research and should be further encouraged and allowed to evolve naturally. However, the public health, Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, and injury epidemiological literature more broadly, has accepted the value of a socioecological paradigm for better understanding disease and injury processes, and sports injury research will fall further behind unless it does the same. A complementary and alternative conceptual approach towards injury control known as systems thinking that builds on socioecological science, both methodologically and analytically, is readily available and fast developing in other research areas. This review outlines the historical progression of causal concepts in the field of epidemiology over the course of the modern scientific era. From here, causal concepts in injury epidemiology, and models of aetiology as found in the context of sports injury research are presented. The paper finishes by proposing a new research agenda that considers the potential for a systems thinking approach to further enhance sports injury aetiological understanding. A complementary systems paradigm, however, will require that sports injury epidemiologists bring their knowledge and skillsets forwards in an attempt to use, adapt, and even refine existing systems-based approaches. Alongside the natural development of conventional scientific methodologies and analyses in sports injury research, progressing forwards to a systems paradigm is now required. © 2015, Hulme and Finch.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »