Mashimo Sonoko, Hogan Takaaki, Nishida Satoru, Watanabe Yumi, Matsuki Yuya, Suhara Hirokazu, Yoshida Naruto
Institute for Liberal Arts and Sciences, Osaka Electro-Communication University.
Media Communication Center, Osaka Electro-Communication University.
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2022 Oct 1;17(6):1119-1127. doi: 10.26603/001c.37852. eCollection 2022.
Epidemiological data on sports injuries and illnesses depend on the surveillance methodology and the definition of the health problems. The effect of different surveillance methods on the data collection has been investigated for overuse injuries, but not for other health problems such as traumatic injuries and illnesses.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the new surveillance method developed by the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center (OSTRC), which is based on any complaint definition (new method), to identify health problems compared with the traditional surveillance method, which is based on time loss definition.
Descriptive epidemiology study.
A total of 62 Japanese athletes were prospectively followed-up for 18 weeks to assess differences in health problems identified by both new and traditional methods. Every week, the athletes completed the Japanese version of the OSTRC questionnaire (OSTRC-H2.JP), whereas the teams' athletic trainers registered health problems with a time loss definition. The numbers of health problems identified via each surveillance method were calculated and compared with each other to assess any differences between their results.
The average weekly response rate to the OSTRC-H2.JP was 82.1% (95% CI, 79.8-84.3). This new method recorded 3.1 times more health problems (3.1 times more injuries and 2.8 times more illnesses) than the traditional method. The difference between both surveillance methods' counts was greater for overuse injuries (5.3 times) than for traumatic injuries (2.5 times).
This study found that the new method captured more than three times as many health problems as the traditional method. In particular, the difference between both methods' counts was greater for overuse injuries than for traumatic injuries.
2b.
关于运动损伤和疾病的流行病学数据取决于监测方法以及健康问题的定义。对于过度使用损伤，已研究了不同监测方法对数据收集的影响，但对于创伤性损伤和疾病等其他健康问题尚未进行研究。
本研究的目的是调查奥斯陆运动创伤研究中心（OSTRC）开发的基于任何投诉定义的新监测方法（新方法），并与基于失能定义的传统监测方法相比，以确定健康问题。
描述性流行病学研究。
对62名日本运动员进行了为期18周的前瞻性随访，以评估新方法和传统方法所确定的健康问题的差异。每周，运动员完成OSTRC问卷的日语版（OSTRC-H2.JP），而各队的运动训练师则根据失能定义记录健康问题。计算通过每种监测方法确定的健康问题数量，并相互比较，以评估结果之间的任何差异。
对OSTRC-H2.JP的平均每周回复率为82.1%（95%CI，79.8-84.3）。这种新方法记录的健康问题比传统方法多3.1倍（损伤多3.1倍，疾病多2.8倍）。两种监测方法计数之间的差异，过度使用损伤（5.3倍）比创伤性损伤（2.5倍）更大。
本研究发现，新方法所捕捉到的健康问题是传统方法的三倍多。特别是，两种方法计数之间的差异，过度使用损伤比创伤性损伤更大。
2b。
