| 1. |
- Bahr, Roald, et al.
(författare)
-
International Olympic Committee consensus statement: methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sport 2020 (including STROBE Extension for Sport Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS))
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 54:7, s. 372-389
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Injury and illness surveillance, and epidemiological studies, are fundamental elements of concerted efforts to protect the health of the athlete. To encourage consistency in the definitions and methodology used, and to enable data across studies to be compared, research groups have published 11 sport-specific or setting-specific consensus statements on sports injury (and, eventually, illness) epidemiology to date. Our objective was to further strengthen consistency in data collection, injury definitions and research reporting through an updated set of recommendations for sports injury and illness studies, including a new Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist extension. The IOC invited a working group of international experts to review relevant literature and provide recommendations. The procedure included an open online survey, several stages of text drafting and consultation by working groups and a 3-day consensus meeting in October 2019. This statement includes recommendations for data collection and research reporting covering key components: defining and classifying health problems; severity of health problems; capturing and reporting athlete exposure; expressing risk; burden of health problems; study population characteristics and data collection methods. Based on these, we also developed a new reporting guideline as a STROBE Extension-the STROBE Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS). The IOC encourages ongoing in- and out-of-competition surveillance programmes and studies to describe injury and illness trends and patterns, understand their causes and develop measures to protect the health of the athlete. Implementation of the methods outlined in this statement will advance consistency in data collection and research reporting.
|
|
| 2. |
- Diermeier, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Isakos Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 2059-7754. ; 6:3, s. 129-137
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance towards consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus non-operative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the Scientific Organising Committee and Session Chairs for the three working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to the meeting and provided initial agreement and comments on the statement via online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Eighty per cent agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative veresus non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support; two reached strong consensus; one did not achieve consensus; and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting and pivoting sports, early anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight plane activities, non-operative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomical ACLR is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and non-operative treatment with patients after an ACL injury. Level of evidence: V
|
|
| 3. |
- Diermeier, Theresa, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. - 2325-9671. ; 8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best-practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus nonoperative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. There were 66 international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, who were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the scientific organizing committee and session chairs for the 3 working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements before the meeting and provided initial agreement and comments on the statement via online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Ultimately, 80% agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Overall, 9 statements achieved unanimous support, 2 reached strong consensus, 1 did not achieve consensus, and 1 was removed because of redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended because of the high risk of secondary meniscal and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight-plane activities, nonoperative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomic ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and nonoperative treatment with patients after an ACL injury.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ekas, Guri Ranum, et al.
(författare)
-
Evidence too weak to guide surgical treatment decisions for anterior cruciate ligament injury: a systematic review of the risk of new meniscal tears after anterior cruciate ligament injury
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 54:9, s. 520-
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To investigate the risk of new meniscal tears after treatment for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, in children and adults with and without ACL reconstruction. Design Prognosis systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42016036788). Methods We searched Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and Google Scholar from inception to 3rd May 2018. Eligible articles included patients with ACL injury (diagnosis confirmed by MRI and/or diagnostic arthroscopy), reported the number of meniscal tears at the time of ACL injury diagnosis/start of treatment and reported the number of new meniscal tears that subsequently occurred. Articles with fewer than 20 patients at follow-up, and articles limited to ACL revision surgery or multi-ligament knee injuries were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened articles, assessed eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We judged the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. Results Of 75 studies included in the systematic review, 54 studies with 9624 patients and 501 new meniscal tears were appropriate for quantitative analysis. Heterogeneity precluded data pooling. The risk of new meniscal tears was 0%-21% when follow-up was <2 years, 0%-29% when follow-up was 2 to 5 years, 5%-52% when follow-up was 5 to 10 years and 4%-31% when follow-up was longer than 10 years. The proportion of studies with high risk of selection, misclassification and detection bias was 84%, 69% and 68%, respectively. Certainty of evidence was very low. Conclusion New meniscal tears occurred in 0%-52% of patients between 4 months and 20 years (mean 4.9 +/- 4.4 years) following treatment for ACL injury. The certainty of evidence was too low to guide surgical treatment decisions. This review cannot conclude that the incidence of new meniscal tears is lower if ACL injury is treated with surgery compared with treatment with rehabilitation only.
|
|
| 5. |
- Meredith, Sean J., et al.
(författare)
-
Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. - : SAGE Publications. - 2325-9671. ; 8:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: A precise and consistent definition of return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is lacking, and there is controversy surrounding the process of returning patients to sport and their previous activity level. Purpose: The aim of the Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group was to provide a clear definition of RTS after ACL injury and a description of the RTS continuum as well as provide clinical guidance on RTS testing and decision-making. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary group of ACL experts convened as part of a consensus meeting. Consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi method. Literature review was performed to report the supporting evidence. Results: Key points include that RTS is characterized by achievement of the preinjury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to RTS and, ultimately, return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along an RTS continuum, with decision-making by a multidisciplinary group that incorporates objective physical examination data and validated and peer-reviewed RTS tests, which should involve functional assessment as well as psychological readiness. Consideration should be given to biological healing, contextual factors, and concomitant injuries. Conclusion: The resultant consensus statements and scientific rationale aim to inform the reader of the complex process of RTS after ACL injury that occurs along a dynamic continuum. Research is needed to determine the ideal RTS test battery, the best implementation of psychological readiness testing, and methods for the biological assessment of healing and recovery.
|
|
| 6. |
- Moksnes, Håvard, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing implementation, limited efficacy, and acceptability of the BEAST tool : A rehabilitation and return-to-sport decision tool for nonprofessional athletes with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Physical Therapy in Sport. - : Elsevier BV. - 1466-853X .- 1873-1600. ; 52, s. 147-154
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: To assess the implementation, limited efficacy, and acceptability of the BEAST (better and safer return to sport) tool - a rehabilitation and return-to-sport (RTS) decision tool after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in nonprofessional athletes.DESIGN: Prospective cohort.PARTICIPANTS: 43 nonprofessional pivoting sport athletes with ACLR.MAIN OUTCOME: Clinician- and athlete-experienced implementation challenges (implementation), changes in quadriceps power, side hop and triple hop performance from 6 to 8 months after ACLR (limited efficacy), athletes' beliefs about the individual rehabilitation and RTS plans produced by the BEAST tool (acceptability).RESULTS: The BEAST tool was developed and then implemented as planned for 39/43 (91%) athletes. Hop and quadriceps power performance improved significantly, with the largest improvement in involved quadriceps power (standardised response mean 1.4, 95% CI:1.1-1.8). Athletes believed the rehabilitation and RTS plan would facilitate RTS (8.2 [SD: 2.0]) and reduce injury risk (8.3 [SD: 1.2]; 0 = not likely at all, 10 = extremely likely).CONCLUSION: The BEAST tool was implemented with few challenges and adjustments were rarely necessary. Athletes had large improvements in quadriceps power and hop performance on the involved leg. Athletes believed that the individual rehabilitation and RTS plans produced by the tool would facilitate RTS and reduce injury risk.
|
|
| 7. |
- Mountjoy, Margo, et al.
(författare)
-
2023 International Olympic Committee's (IOC) consensus statement on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 57:17, s. 1073-1097
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs) was first introduced in 2014 by the International Olympic Committee's expert writing panel, identifying a syndrome of deleterious health and performance outcomes experienced by female and male athletes exposed to low energy availability (LEA; inadequate energy intake in relation to exercise energy expenditure). Since the 2018 REDs consensus, there have been >170 original research publications advancing the field of REDs science, including emerging data demonstrating the growing role of low carbohydrate availability, further evidence of the interplay between mental health and REDs and more data elucidating the impact of LEA in males. Our knowledge of REDs signs and symptoms has resulted in updated Health and Performance Conceptual Models and the development of a novel Physiological Model. This Physiological Model is designed to demonstrate the complexity of either problematic or adaptable LEA exposure, coupled with individual moderating factors, leading to changes in health and performance outcomes. Guidelines for safe and effective body composition assessment to help prevent REDs are also outlined. A new REDs Clinical Assessment Tool-Version 2 is introduced to facilitate the detection and clinical diagnosis of REDs based on accumulated severity and risk stratification, with associated training and competition recommendations. Prevention and treatment principles of REDs are presented to encourage best practices for sports organisations and clinicians. Finally, methodological best practices for REDs research are outlined to stimulate future high-quality research to address important knowledge gaps.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
