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.
International consensus statement on injury surveillance in cricket : A 2016 update
- Orchard, John, Ranson, Craig, Olivier, Benita, Dhillon, Mandeep, Gray, Janine, Langley, Ben, Mansingh, Akshai, Moore, Isabel, Murphy, Ian, Patricios, Jon, Alwar, Thiagarajan, Clark, Christopher, Harrop, Brett, Khan, Hussain, Kountouris, Alex, Macphail, Mairi, Mount, Stephen, Mupotaringa, Anesu, Newman, David, O'Reilly, Kieran, Peirce, Nicholas, Saleem, Sohail, Shackel, Dayle, Stretch, Richard, Finch, Caroline
- Authors: Orchard, John , Ranson, Craig , Olivier, Benita , Dhillon, Mandeep , Gray, Janine , Langley, Ben , Mansingh, Akshai , Moore, Isabel , Murphy, Ian , Patricios, Jon , Alwar, Thiagarajan , Clark, Christopher , Harrop, Brett , Khan, Hussain , Kountouris, Alex , Macphail, Mairi , Mount, Stephen , Mupotaringa, Anesu , Newman, David , O'Reilly, Kieran , Peirce, Nicholas , Saleem, Sohail , Shackel, Dayle , Stretch, Richard , Finch, Caroline
- Date: 2016
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: British Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 50, no. 20 (2016), p. 1245-1251
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Cricket was the first sport to publish recommended methods for injury surveillance in 2005. Since then, there have been changes to the nature of both cricket and injury surveillance. Researchers representing the major cricket playing nations met to propose changes to the previous recommendations, with an agreed voting block of 14. It was decided that 10 of 14 votes (70%) were required to add a new definition element and 11 of 14 (80%) were required to amend a previous definition. In addition to the previously agreed 'Match time-loss' injury, definitions of 'General time-loss', 'Medical presentation', 'Player-reported' and 'Imaging-abnormality' injuries are now provided. Further, new injury incidence units of match injuries per 1000 player days, and annual injuries per 100 players per year are recommended. There was a shift towards recommending a greater number of possible definitions, due to differing contexts and foci of cricket research (eg, professional vs amateur; injury surveillance systems vs specific injury category studies). It is recommended that researchers use and report as many of the definitions as possible to assist both comparisons between studies within cricket and with those from other sports.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »