Cited by 20Occupational Health and PerformanceStatistical Methods in EpidemiologySports injuries and prevention

Predictive models for musculoskeletal injury risk: why statistical approach makes all the difference

Open access
Rhon, Daniel I, Teyhen, Deydre S, Collins, Gary S, Bullock, Garrett S·2022·BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine

Abstract

Objective: Compare performance between an injury prediction model categorising predictors and one that did not and compare a selection of predictors based on univariate significance versus assessing non-linear relationships. Methods: Validation and replication of a previously developed injury prediction model in a cohort of 1466 service members followed for 1 year after physical performance, medical history and sociodemographic variables were collected. The original model dichotomised 11 predictors. The second model (M2) kept predictors continuous but assumed linearity and the third model (M3) conducted non-linear transformations. The fourth model (M4) chose predictors the proper way (clinical reasoning and supporting evidence). Model performance was assessed with R 2 , calibration in the large, calibration slope and discrimination. Decision curve analyses were performed with risk thresholds from 0.25 to 0.50. Results: 478 personnel sustained an injury. The original model demonstrated poorer R 2 (original:0.07; M2:0.63; M3:0.64; M4:0.08), calibration in the large (original:−0.11 (95% CI −0.22 to 0.00); M2: −0.02 (95% CI −0.17 to 0.13); M3:0.03 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.19); M4: −0.13 (95% CI −0.25 to –0.01)), calibration slope (original:0.84 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.07); M2:0.97 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.08); M3:0.90 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.05); M4: 081 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.03) and discrimination (original:0.63 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.66); M2:0.90 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.92); M3:0.90 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.92); M4: 0.63 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.66)). At 0.25 injury risk, M2 and M3 demonstrated a 0.43 net benefit improvement. At 0.50 injury risk, M2 and M3 demonstrated a 0.33 net benefit improvement compared with the original model. Conclusion: Model performance was substantially worse in the models with dichotomised variables. This highlights the need to follow established recommendations when developing prediction models.

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/bmjsem-2022-001388

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Dichotomising or categorising continuous predictors reduces information and diminishes statistical power.

    “Dichotomising or categorising continuous predictors reduces information and diminishes statistical power and should be avoided.41 42”

    From Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rhon, D. I., Teyhen, D. S., Collins, G. S., & Bullock, G. S.
Affiliations
  • Brooke Army Medical Center (US)
  • United States Army (US)
  • Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Rhon, Daniel I
Venue
BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-10
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
e001388
ISSN
2055-7647 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4306253192
Cited by
20
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3
FWCI
5.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (MIRROR HU00011920011)
  • Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs ((D10_I_AR_J5_951))
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports injuries and prevention
Keywords
musculoskeletal injuries, injury prediction, prediction model performance, nonlinear relationship, continuous predictors, model calibration, model discrimination, decision curve analysis, military personnel, physical performance, predictor selection, risk thresholds, injury prevention

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