↓ Skip to main content

Methodology in football injury epidemiology

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methodology in football injury epidemiology
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, September 2015
DOI 10.1111/sms.12551
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Kristenson, J. Bjørneboe, M. Waldén, T. E. Andersen, J. Ekstrand, M. Hägglund

Abstract

Methodological considerations of football injury epidemiology have only scarcely been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater agreement in injury capture rate and injury categorization for data registered in two different prospective injury surveillance audits studying the same two Norwegian male professional football clubs for two consecutive seasons, 2008-2009. One audit used team-based exposure (TBE) recording and the other individual-based exposure (IBE). The number of injuries recorded and corresponding injury rates (injuries/1000 h exposure) were compared between audits. Cohen's kappa and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) coefficients were calculated for injury variables. Of 323 injuries included, the IBE audit captured 318 (overall capture rate 98.5%, training 98.9%, match 97.8%) and the TBE audit 303 injuries (overall capture rate 93.8%, training 91.4%, match 97.1%). Agreement analysis showed kappa and PABAK coefficients regarded as almost perfect (> 0.81) for 8 of 9 injury variables, and substantial (ƙ 0.75) for the variable injury severity. In conclusion, the capture rate for training injuries was slightly higher with IBE recording, and inter-agreement in injury categorization was very high.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 4 6%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 32%
Sports and Recreations 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,034,319
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
#699
of 2,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,225
of 283,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
#13
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.