جمعه 2 آذر 1403
دوره 10، شماره 3 - ( 5-1399 )
جلد 10 شماره 3 صفحات 144-135 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ebrahimi Varkiani M, Alizadeh M H, Rajabi R, Minoonejad H. Comparing Two Sports Injury Surveillance Systems: A Novel Systematic Approach. PTJ 2020; 10 (3) :135-144
URL: http://ptj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-400-fa.html
URL: http://ptj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-400-fa.html
Comparing Two Sports Injury Surveillance Systems: A Novel Systematic Approach. فصلنامه فیزیک درمانی. 1399; 10 (3) :135-144
چکیده: (2726 مشاهده)
Purpose: The present study aimed to compare two sports injury surveillance systems per the sports injury recording system of the sports medicine federation.
Methods: A sports injury surveillance system was implemented to collect injury data. Athletic trainers recorded athletes’ sports injuries in soccer, volleyball, handball, taekwondo, and wrestling for 6 months in their user account via a smartphone-based application. The sports recording system routinely collected data alongside the sports injury surveillance system. Finally, the collected results were compared with the federation’s sports injury recording system.
Results: Overall, 81 sports injuries were reported to the surveillance system. The incidence rate of 1.39 injuries per 1000 registered athletes was calculated in a sports injury surveillance system. This incidence rate was equal to 0.32 injuries per 1000 athletes registered in the sports injury recording system. Contusion and bruising were the most frequent injuries. However, there was no data on injury type in the sports injury recording system. Fingers and knees were the most commonly reported body parts in the sports injury surveillance system; however, knee and thigh were the most commonly recorded parts in the sports injury recording system. There was also a significant difference between the results of the two systems (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Different implementation and reporting methods as well as having injury definition may affect the results. Employing easy access and user-friendly tools may facilitate injury recording.
Methods: A sports injury surveillance system was implemented to collect injury data. Athletic trainers recorded athletes’ sports injuries in soccer, volleyball, handball, taekwondo, and wrestling for 6 months in their user account via a smartphone-based application. The sports recording system routinely collected data alongside the sports injury surveillance system. Finally, the collected results were compared with the federation’s sports injury recording system.
Results: Overall, 81 sports injuries were reported to the surveillance system. The incidence rate of 1.39 injuries per 1000 registered athletes was calculated in a sports injury surveillance system. This incidence rate was equal to 0.32 injuries per 1000 athletes registered in the sports injury recording system. Contusion and bruising were the most frequent injuries. However, there was no data on injury type in the sports injury recording system. Fingers and knees were the most commonly reported body parts in the sports injury surveillance system; however, knee and thigh were the most commonly recorded parts in the sports injury recording system. There was also a significant difference between the results of the two systems (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Different implementation and reporting methods as well as having injury definition may affect the results. Employing easy access and user-friendly tools may facilitate injury recording.
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
