Ground condition as a risk factor in sports injury aetiology studies : the level of concordance between objective and subjective measures
- Twomey, Dara, Petrass, Lauren, Orchard, John, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Petrass, Lauren , Orchard, John , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Injury Epidemiology Vol. 1, no. 1 (2014), p.1-7
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description:
BACKGROUND:It is well known that the condition and type of sporting ground influences the risk of sports injury. However, the lack of evidence on the relationship between subjective and objective sporting ground condition assessments in sports injury aetiology studies has implications for the development of effective injury prevention strategies. This paper aims to examine concordance between subjectively rated and objective ground hardness and moisture measurements to inform data collection methods for future sports injury aetiology studies. METHODS:Subjective, observational assessments of ground hardness and soil moisture were recorded on 36 occasions during an Australian football season using two four-point scales of 'very soft' to 'very hard' and 'very wet' to 'very dry', respectively. Independent, objectively measured hardness and soil moisture were also undertaken at nine locations on the same grounds. The maximum and minimum ground values and the computed average of ground hardness and soil moisture were analysed. Somer's d statistic was calculated to measure the level of concordance between the subjective and objective measures. RESULTS:A significant, moderate to substantial level of agreement was found between the subjective ratings and the average objective hardness values (d = 0.467, p <0.001), but there was perfect agreement on just less than half of the occasions. The level of concordance between the subjective and objective moisture ratings was low to moderate or trivial for all moisture measures (0.002
0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to objective measures, the subjective assessments were more accurate for ground hardness than for soil moisture levels and raters were just as likely to underestimate or overestimate the condition under review. This has implications for future sports injury aetiology studies that include ground condition assessments and particularly the use of subjective measures to underpin the development of future injury prevention strategies.
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Petrass, Lauren , Orchard, John , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Injury Epidemiology Vol. 1, no. 1 (2014), p.1-7
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description:
BACKGROUND:It is well known that the condition and type of sporting ground influences the risk of sports injury. However, the lack of evidence on the relationship between subjective and objective sporting ground condition assessments in sports injury aetiology studies has implications for the development of effective injury prevention strategies. This paper aims to examine concordance between subjectively rated and objective ground hardness and moisture measurements to inform data collection methods for future sports injury aetiology studies. METHODS:Subjective, observational assessments of ground hardness and soil moisture were recorded on 36 occasions during an Australian football season using two four-point scales of 'very soft' to 'very hard' and 'very wet' to 'very dry', respectively. Independent, objectively measured hardness and soil moisture were also undertaken at nine locations on the same grounds. The maximum and minimum ground values and the computed average of ground hardness and soil moisture were analysed. Somer's d statistic was calculated to measure the level of concordance between the subjective and objective measures. RESULTS:A significant, moderate to substantial level of agreement was found between the subjective ratings and the average objective hardness values (d = 0.467, p <0.001), but there was perfect agreement on just less than half of the occasions. The level of concordance between the subjective and objective moisture ratings was low to moderate or trivial for all moisture measures (0.002
0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to objective measures, the subjective assessments were more accurate for ground hardness than for soil moisture levels and raters were just as likely to underestimate or overestimate the condition under review. This has implications for future sports injury aetiology studies that include ground condition assessments and particularly the use of subjective measures to underpin the development of future injury prevention strategies.
Do hard playing fields increase the risk of injury in community level Australian football?
- Twomey, Dara, Otago, Leonie, Finch, Caroline, Chivers, I., Orchard, John
- Authors: Twomey, Dara , Otago, Leonie , Finch, Caroline , Chivers, I. , Orchard, John
- Date: 2008
- Type: Text , Conference paper
- Relation: Paper presented at ASICS Conference of science and medicine in sport 2008, Hamilton Island : 16th-18th October 2008
- Full Text: false
- Description: Introduction: Certain ground conditions, including hardness, have been associated with an increased injury risk. Many sporting grounds have been deemed unplayable based on hardness measures and subsequently closed. However, most research linking injury to ground conditions has been based on subjective observations or focussed at high performance venues. The aim of this study was to identify the relationship between ground hardness and injury incidence in community level Australian football. Methodology: Measurements of ground hardness, using the Clegg hammer, were recorded on eight community level football grounds between 4 and 8 times during the 2007 season. Injury data was collected by trained data collectors over the season. The 1st Clegg hammer drop was used as the hardness measure, and injuries were ranked as ‘likely’, ‘possibly’, and ‘unlikely’ to be related to grounds by three independent assessors. Results: 130 injuries were recorded at the grounds tested. The Clegg hammer measures ranged from 55 to 134 gravities (g), with four injuries sustained at readings over 120 × g. Of the 130 injuries, 12 were classified as ‘likely’ to be related to ground conditions, 29 ‘possibly’ related, 75 ‘unlikely’ and 14 unknown due to incomplete details. None of the ‘likely’ injuries were sustained on readings over 120 × g. No significant relationships were found between ground hardness and any injury profiles (0.02 < r < 0.14, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Presently, sporting grounds are being closed with hardness readings exceeding 120 × g. The results of this study provide some evidence to challenge this, however, due to low injury rates further research with a larger cohort is necessary.
Coding OSICS sports injury diagnoses in epidemiological studies : Does the background of the coder matter?
- Finch, Caroline, Orchard, John, Twomey, Dara, Saleem, Muhammad Saad, Ekegren, Christina, Lloyd, David, Elliott, Bruce
- Authors: Finch, Caroline , Orchard, John , Twomey, Dara , Saleem, Muhammad Saad , Ekegren, Christina , Lloyd, David , Elliott, Bruce
- Date: 2012
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol.48, p.552-556.
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective: To compare Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS-10) sports medicine diagnoses assigned by a clinical and non-clinical coder. Design: Assessment of intercoder agreement. Setting: Community Australian football. Participants: 1082 standardised injury surveillance records. Main outcome measurements: Direct comparison of the four-character hierarchical OSICS-10 codes assigned by two independent coders (a sports physician and an epidemiologist). Adjudication by a third coder (biomechanist). Results: The coders agreed on the first character 95% of the time and on the first two characters 86% of the time. They assigned the same four-digit OSICS-10 code for only 46% of the 1082 injuries. The majority of disagreements occurred for the third character; 85% were because one coder assigned a non-specific 'X' code. The sports physician code was deemed correct in 53% of cases and the epidemiologist in 44%. Reasons for disagreement included the physician not using all of the collected information and the epidemiologist lacking specific anatomical knowledge. Conclusions: Sports injury research requires accurate identification and classification of specific injuries and this study found an overall high level of agreement in coding according to OSICS-10. The fact that the majority of the disagreements occurred for the third OSICS character highlights the fact that increasing complexity and diagnostic specificity in injury coding can result in a loss of reliability and demands a high level of anatomical knowledge. Injury report form details need to reflect this level of complexity and data management teams need to include a broad range of expertise. Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2012.
- Authors: Finch, Caroline , Orchard, John , Twomey, Dara , Saleem, Muhammad Saad , Ekegren, Christina , Lloyd, David , Elliott, Bruce
- Date: 2012
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol.48, p.552-556.
- Relation: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565900
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective: To compare Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS-10) sports medicine diagnoses assigned by a clinical and non-clinical coder. Design: Assessment of intercoder agreement. Setting: Community Australian football. Participants: 1082 standardised injury surveillance records. Main outcome measurements: Direct comparison of the four-character hierarchical OSICS-10 codes assigned by two independent coders (a sports physician and an epidemiologist). Adjudication by a third coder (biomechanist). Results: The coders agreed on the first character 95% of the time and on the first two characters 86% of the time. They assigned the same four-digit OSICS-10 code for only 46% of the 1082 injuries. The majority of disagreements occurred for the third character; 85% were because one coder assigned a non-specific 'X' code. The sports physician code was deemed correct in 53% of cases and the epidemiologist in 44%. Reasons for disagreement included the physician not using all of the collected information and the epidemiologist lacking specific anatomical knowledge. Conclusions: Sports injury research requires accurate identification and classification of specific injuries and this study found an overall high level of agreement in coding according to OSICS-10. The fact that the majority of the disagreements occurred for the third OSICS character highlights the fact that increasing complexity and diagnostic specificity in injury coding can result in a loss of reliability and demands a high level of anatomical knowledge. Injury report form details need to reflect this level of complexity and data management teams need to include a broad range of expertise. Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2012.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »