| Title |
Sports Injury Surveillance Systems: A Review of Methods and Data Quality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-015-0410-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christina L. Ekegren, Belinda J. Gabbe, Caroline F. Finch |
| Abstract |
Data from sports injury surveillance systems are a prerequisite to the development and evaluation of injury prevention strategies. This review aimed to identify ongoing sports injury surveillance systems and determine whether there are gaps in our understanding of injuries in certain sport settings. A secondary aim was to determine which of the included surveillance systems have evaluated the quality of their data, a key factor in determining their usefulness. A systematic search was carried out to identify (1) publications presenting methodological details of sports injury surveillance systems within clubs and organisations; and (2) publications describing quality evaluations and the quality of data from these systems. Data extracted included methodological details of the surveillance systems, methods used to evaluate data quality, and results of these evaluations. Following literature search and review, a total of 15 sports injury surveillance systems were identified. Data relevant to each aim were summarised descriptively. Most systems were found to exist within professional and elite sports. Publications concerning data quality were identified for seven (47 %) systems. Validation of system data through comparison with alternate sources has been undertaken for only four systems (27 %). This review identified a shortage of ongoing injury surveillance data from amateur and community sport settings and limited information about the quality of data in professional and elite settings. More surveillance systems are needed across a range of sport settings, as are standards for data quality reporting. These efforts will enable better monitoring of sports injury trends and the development of sports safety strategies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 21% |
| Australia | 3 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Qatar | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 217 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 11% |
| Other | 16 | 7% |
| Researcher | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 40 | 18% |
| Unknown | 65 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 65 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unknown | 75 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,677,983
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,675
of 2,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,685
of 275,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#31
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 52.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 275,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.