Surveillance of serious recreational injuries

LaPorte, Ronald E.; Kohl, Harold W.; Dearwater, Stephen R.; Kriska, Andrea M.; Anderson, R.; Aaron, Deborah J.; Olsen, Todd; McCarty, Daniel J.; Jenkins, Robin

doi:10.1249/00005768-199302000-00007

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…I should acknowledge that Ronald LaPorte and colleagues presented a similar argument and definition in a paper on the surveillance of recreational injuries, published in 1993. 6 The real problem lies in how we operationalize this, or any other, definition of sports injury. Unfortunately, we seem to do this in a bewildering variety of ways.…”

Section: Sports Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Injury prevention in sport: not yet part of the game?

Chalmers

2002

Inj Prev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:There is a saying in sport that “injury is just part of the game”. In other words, injury in sport is seen as inevitable.Objective:To examine progress toward reaching the contrary position that “injury prevention is just part of the game”.Methods:The four steps of van Mechelen’s “sequence of prevention” model provide a structure for examining progress.Results:What is known about the size of the problem (step 1)? Most is known about more serious injuries and about injuries in élite and professional sport. Least is known about less serious injuries, injury in community level and amateur sport, and injury occurring in recreational activities. What is known about risk factors (step 2)? Despite calls for analytic studies since the early 1980s, few such studies have been reported in the literature. What is known about the effectiveness of preventive measures (step 3)? Few randomized controlled trials have been reported in the literature. Are there systems in place to monitor sports injury (step 4)? Examples are given of systems in North America, Europe, and Australasia.Conclusions:With a few exceptions, progress has not gone beyond step 1 in van Mechelen’s model. Challenges for the future include: deciding where research efforts should be placed, standardization of definitions and methods of data collection and reporting, identification of risk factors and mechanisms of injury, and the evaluation of interventions. Finally, if the field of sports injury prevention is to advance, multidisciplinary collaboration will be required, along with the involvement of the sports community.

show abstract

Section: Sports Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Injury prevention in sport: not yet part of the game?

Chalmers

2002

Inj Prev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Como para a maioria dos esportes no Brasil, no surfe também não existe um sistema de coleta de dados e informações sobre os acidentes. Para o devido controle e monitorização das lesões esportivas mais graves relacionadas à prática do surfe é aconselhável realizar estudos visando a implantação de um sistema nacional de controle das lesões esportivas, que contemple: 1) estimar quantitativamente a incidência de lesões para cada esporte (morbidade e mortalidade); 2) detectar os eventos esportivos com maior potencial para acidentes; 3) identificar as circunstâncias relacionadas ao acidente; 4) estimular as pesquisas epidemiológicas para determinar fatores específicos para o controle e a prevenção; 5) determinar a eficácia dos programas de prevenção 14 .…”

Section: Recomendaçõesunclassified

Epidemiologia dos acidentes no surfe no Brasil

Steinman

Vasconcellos

Ramos

et al. 2000

Rev Bras Med Esporte

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apesar do grande número de praticantes do surfe no Brasil, nenhum trabalho científico nacional foi dedicado à caracterização e análise epidemiológica das lesões esportivas desse grupo. Pretendeu-se com este estudo identificar os tipos e lesões mais freqüentes relacionadas à prática do surfe recreacional e competitivo no Brasil. Estudaram-se suas causas, a parte do corpo atingida, sua gravidade, relacionadas às diferentes condições de surfe. Foram distribuídos 21.300 questionários pelos Estados litorâneos do Nordeste, Sudeste e Sul do Brasil. Um banco de dados foi montado com respostas de 930 praticantes, que relataram 927 lesões que necessitaram atenção médica ou que impediram a prática do surfe por um ou mais dias (num período de três anos). A população incluiu 67,5% surfistas recreacionais, 29,4% amadores e 3,1% profissionais, a maior parte do sexo masculino (95,3%); 56,6% praticam o esporte há mais de cinco anos. A média de idade foi de 23,7 anos (DP = 6,30). A maioria das lesões foi de natureza traumática (82,5%) e ocorreu durante a prática do surfe recreacional (96,2%). As lesões mais comuns foram as lacerações (44%), as contusões (16,9%) e as lesões musculoligamentares (15,5%); 38% das lesões atingiram os membros inferiores, 17,9% os membros superiores e 15,6% a cabeça. O tempo de afastamento da prática do surfe devido à lesão foi: 54,2% até 7 dias, 20,7% entre 7 e 14 dias, 10,1% entre 14 e 30 dias e 14,8% mais de 30 dias. Nesta amostra, a incidência de lesões foi de 2,47 para cada mil dias de surfe. Esta incidência foi inferior à obtida em outros estudos. Apesar da alta incidência de lesões traumáticas neste estudo, a alta prevalência de dores lombares recorrentes (28,4%), dores no pescoço (27,3%), dores nos ombros (20,5%) e dores nos joelhos (12,5%) sugere que as lesões de esforço repetido sejam um problema comum entre os surfistas.

show abstract

“…The existing national disease surveillance systems consist of data retrieved from multiple sources to aid in rapid detection of epidemics. Other ongoing passive surveillance systems include a variety of national voluntary reporting systems (e.g., recreational injury) that have informants submit data to a central database (7). Noncommunicable disease surveillance efforts, utilizing disease‐specific population‐based registries, are often limited to specific geographic areas (such as a county).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

US incidence of juvenile dermatomyositis, 1995–1998: Results from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Registry

Mendez

Lipton

Ramsey‐Goldman

et al. 2003

Arthritis & Rheumatism

325

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To estimate the incidence of juvenile dermatomyositis (juvenile DM) in the United States between 1995 and 1998. Methods. Physician referrals to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Registry and the National Pediatric Rheumatology Disease Registry from Indiana University were utilized for a 2-source capture-recapture estimation of Juvenile DM annual incidence. Results. For children 2-17 years of age, the estimated annual incidence rates from 1995 to 1998 in the US ranged from 2.5 to 4.1 juvenile DM cases per million children, and the 4-year average annual rate was 3.2 per million children (95% confidence interval 2.9 -3.4). Estimated annual incidence rates by race were 3.4 for white non-Hispanics, 3.3 for African American non-Hispanics, and 2.7 for Hispanics. During the 4-year period of the study, completeness of ascertainment for the combined registries ranged from 56% to 86% and girls were affected more than boys (ratio 2.3:1). Conclusion. This study provides evidence for sex, and possibly racial differences in the risk of juvenile DM in the US.

show abstract

Surveillance of serious recreational injuries

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Injury prevention in sport: not yet part of the game?

Injury prevention in sport: not yet part of the game?

Epidemiologia dos acidentes no surfe no Brasil

US incidence of juvenile dermatomyositis, 1995–1998: Results from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Registry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About