Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Injury and illness definitions and data collection procedures for use in epidemiological studies in Athletics (track and field): Consensus statement

Timpka, Toomas, Alonso, Juan-Manuel, Jacobsson, Jenny, Junge, Astrid, Branco, Pedro, Clarsen, Ben, Kowalski, Jan, Mountjoy, Margo, Nilsson, Sverker, Pluim, Babette, Renström, Per, Rønsen, Ola, Steffen, Kathrin, Edouard, Pascal·2014·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Background: Movement towards sport safety in Athletics through the introduction of preventive strategies requires consensus on definitions and methods for reporting epidemiological data in the various populations of athletes. Objective: To define health-related incidents (injuries and illnesses) that should be recorded in epidemiological studies in Athletics, and the criteria for recording their nature, cause and severity, as well as standards for data collection and analysis procedures. Methods: A 1-day meeting of 14 experts from eight countries representing a range of Athletics stakeholders and sport science researchers was facilitated. Definitions of injuries and illnesses, study design and data collection for epidemiological studies in Athletics were discussed during the meeting. Two members of the group produced a draft statement after this meeting, and distributed to the group members for their input. A revision was prepared, and the procedure was repeated to finalise the consensus statement. Results: Definitions of injuries and illnesses and categories for recording of their nature, cause and severity were provided. Essential baseline information was listed. Guidelines on the recording of exposure data during competition and training and the calculation of prevalence and incidences were given. Finally, methodological guidance for consistent recording and reporting on injury and illness in athletics was described. Conclusions: This consensus statement provides definitions and methodological guidance for epidemiological studies in Athletics. Consistent use of the definitions and methodological guidance would lead to more reliable and comparable evidence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093241

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Timpka, T., Alonso, J.-M., Jacobsson, J., Junge, A., Branco, P., Clarsen, B., Kowalski, J., Mountjoy, M., Nilsson, S., Pluim, B., Renström, P., Rønsen, O., Steffen, K., & Edouard, P.
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-03-11
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
483-490
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2129254352
Cited by
317
References
4
FWCI
25.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.