Cited by 26Eating Disorders and BehaviorsLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesBone health and osteoporosis research

Characterization of Risk Quantification Differences Using Female Athlete Triad Cumulative Risk Assessment and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport Clinical Assessment Tool

Holtzman, Bryan, Tenforde, Adam S., Parziale, Allyson L., Ackerman, Kathryn E.·2019·International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

Abstract

This study's objective was to identify differences in risk for low energy availability and athletic clearance level by comparing scores on Female Athlete Triad Cumulative Risk Assessment (Triad CRA) and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport Clinical Assessment Tool (RED-S CAT). A total of 1,000 female athletes aged 15-30 years participating in ≥4 hr of physical activity/week for the previous ≥6 months completed an extensive survey assessing health, athletic history, family disease history, and specific Triad/RED-S risk factors. Retrospective chart review ascertained laboratory and bone mineral density measures. Triad CRA and RED-S CAT were used to assign each athlete's risk level (low, moderate, and high), and case-by-case comparison measured the level of agreement between the tools. We hypothesized that the tools would generally agree on low-risk athletes and that the tools would be less aligned in the specific elevated risk level (moderate or high). Most of the sample was assigned moderate or high risk for Triad CRA and RED-S CAT (Triad: 54.7% moderate and 7.9% high; RED-S: 63.2% moderate and 33.0% high). The tools agreed on risk for 55.5% of athletes. Agreement increased to 64.3% when only athletes with bone mineral density measurements were considered. In conclusion, Triad CRA and RED-S CAT provide consensus on the majority of athletes at elevated (moderate or high) risk for low energy availability, but have less agreement on the specific risk level assigned.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1123/ijsnem.2019-0002

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 20 · Cited by 26

Authors
Holtzman, B., Tenforde, A. S., Parziale, A. L., & Ackerman, K. E.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism
Published
2019-11-01
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
569-575
ISSN
  • 1526-484X (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-2742
OpenAlex
W2943322244
Cited by
26
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
female athlete triad, relative energy deficiency in sport, low energy availability, risk assessment tools, bone mineral density, female athletes
MeSH terms
Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review