Cargando…

Comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) models and their application in a sporting population

BACKGROUND: The original subsequent injury categorisation (SIC-1.0) model aimed to classify relationships between chronological injury sequences to provide insight into the complexity and causation of subsequent injury occurrence. An updated model has recently been published. Comparison of the data...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Toohey, Liam A., Drew, Michael K., Fortington, Lauren V., Menaspa, Miranda J., Finch, Caroline F., Cook, Jill L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31245258
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-019-0183-1
_version_ 1783428370065784832
author Toohey, Liam A.
Drew, Michael K.
Fortington, Lauren V.
Menaspa, Miranda J.
Finch, Caroline F.
Cook, Jill L.
author_facet Toohey, Liam A.
Drew, Michael K.
Fortington, Lauren V.
Menaspa, Miranda J.
Finch, Caroline F.
Cook, Jill L.
author_sort Toohey, Liam A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The original subsequent injury categorisation (SIC-1.0) model aimed to classify relationships between chronological injury sequences to provide insight into the complexity and causation of subsequent injury occurrence. An updated model has recently been published. Comparison of the data coded according to the original and revised subsequent injury categorisation (SIC-1.0 and SIC-2.0) models has yet been formally compared. METHODS: Medical attention injury data was prospectively collected for 42 elite water polo players over an 8 month surveillance period. The SIC-1.0 and SIC-2.0 models were retrospectively applied to the injury data. The injury categorisation from the two models was compared using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventy-four injuries were sustained by the 42 players (median = 2, range = 0–5), of which 32 injuries (43.2%) occurred subsequent to a previous injury. The majority of subsequent injuries were coded as occurring at a different site and being of a different nature, while also being considered clinically unrelated to the previous injury (SIC-1.0 category 10 = 57.9%; SIC-2.0 clinical category 16 = 54.4%). Application of the SIC-2.0 model resulted in a greater distribution of category allocation compared to the SIC-1.0 model that reflects a greater precision in the SIC-2.0 model. CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent injury categorisation of sport injury data can be undertaken using either the original (SIC-1.0) or the revised (SIC-2.0) model to obtain similar results. However, the SIC-2.0 model offers the ability to identify a larger number of mutually exclusive categories, while not relying on clinical adjudication for category allocation. The increased precision of SIC-2.0 is advantageous for clinical application and consideration of injury relationships. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40621-019-0183-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6582673
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65826732019-06-26 Comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) models and their application in a sporting population Toohey, Liam A. Drew, Michael K. Fortington, Lauren V. Menaspa, Miranda J. Finch, Caroline F. Cook, Jill L. Inj Epidemiol Short Report BACKGROUND: The original subsequent injury categorisation (SIC-1.0) model aimed to classify relationships between chronological injury sequences to provide insight into the complexity and causation of subsequent injury occurrence. An updated model has recently been published. Comparison of the data coded according to the original and revised subsequent injury categorisation (SIC-1.0 and SIC-2.0) models has yet been formally compared. METHODS: Medical attention injury data was prospectively collected for 42 elite water polo players over an 8 month surveillance period. The SIC-1.0 and SIC-2.0 models were retrospectively applied to the injury data. The injury categorisation from the two models was compared using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventy-four injuries were sustained by the 42 players (median = 2, range = 0–5), of which 32 injuries (43.2%) occurred subsequent to a previous injury. The majority of subsequent injuries were coded as occurring at a different site and being of a different nature, while also being considered clinically unrelated to the previous injury (SIC-1.0 category 10 = 57.9%; SIC-2.0 clinical category 16 = 54.4%). Application of the SIC-2.0 model resulted in a greater distribution of category allocation compared to the SIC-1.0 model that reflects a greater precision in the SIC-2.0 model. CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent injury categorisation of sport injury data can be undertaken using either the original (SIC-1.0) or the revised (SIC-2.0) model to obtain similar results. However, the SIC-2.0 model offers the ability to identify a larger number of mutually exclusive categories, while not relying on clinical adjudication for category allocation. The increased precision of SIC-2.0 is advantageous for clinical application and consideration of injury relationships. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40621-019-0183-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6582673/ /pubmed/31245258 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-019-0183-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Short Report
Toohey, Liam A.
Drew, Michael K.
Fortington, Lauren V.
Menaspa, Miranda J.
Finch, Caroline F.
Cook, Jill L.
Comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) models and their application in a sporting population
title Comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) models and their application in a sporting population
title_full Comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) models and their application in a sporting population
title_fullStr Comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) models and their application in a sporting population
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) models and their application in a sporting population
title_short Comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (SIC) models and their application in a sporting population
title_sort comparison of subsequent injury categorisation (sic) models and their application in a sporting population
topic Short Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31245258
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-019-0183-1
work_keys_str_mv AT tooheyliama comparisonofsubsequentinjurycategorisationsicmodelsandtheirapplicationinasportingpopulation
AT drewmichaelk comparisonofsubsequentinjurycategorisationsicmodelsandtheirapplicationinasportingpopulation
AT fortingtonlaurenv comparisonofsubsequentinjurycategorisationsicmodelsandtheirapplicationinasportingpopulation
AT menaspamirandaj comparisonofsubsequentinjurycategorisationsicmodelsandtheirapplicationinasportingpopulation
AT finchcarolinef comparisonofsubsequentinjurycategorisationsicmodelsandtheirapplicationinasportingpopulation
AT cookjilll comparisonofsubsequentinjurycategorisationsicmodelsandtheirapplicationinasportingpopulation