Preparticipation Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To review available evidence establishing the validity of the preparticipation evaluation (PPE) as a method for screening health risk prior to participation in exercise and sport. Specific emphasis was placed on reviewing original research evaluating methods to screen participants for risk of sudden cardiovascular death. Literature on the current state of the PPE as a screening tool for athletic participation was examined. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for articles relating to mass screening for sports participation and sudden cardiac death in athletes published up to January 2004. Databases searched included Medline (OVID Web, 1966-2004), PubMed (1966-2004), Sport Discuss (1975-2004), Current Contents, CISTI Source (1993-2004), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EBM Reviews. Additional references from the bibliographies of retrieved articles were also reviewed. SELECTION CRITERIA: All study designs were retrieved, but only those studying athletes and/or student-athletes under age 36 years were reviewed. Of the original research retrieved, the majority of the articles sought to establish incidence or prevalence of cardiovascular causes of sudden death in athletes or the validity of various screening tools. Original research articles seeking to establish the current use of the PPE in all its various forms were also reviewed. All of the articles selected for review consisted of type II, population-based data. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The initial literature search identified 639 papers. Of these, 310 articles that met the selection criteria were reviewed, and 25 articles were identified as original research directly relating to the PPE. All of these contained type II evidence-population-based clinical studies. The majority of the literature on the PPE consists of type III evidence-case-based opinion papers and position papers from respected authors and sports medicine societies and reports of expert committees. This literature was also reviewed, but only original research relevant to the PPE is reported in this article. The majority of these studies examined cardiovascular diseases and screening procedures. RESULTS: The 5 studies that assessed the format or effectiveness of the PPE concluded that it was inadequate. The format of the PPE is not standardized and does not consistently address the American Heart Association recommendations for cardiovascular screening history and physical exams. A variety of health care professionals, some without proper training, administer the PPE. The 12 original studies that looked at specific cardiovascular screening techniques were divided on the effectiveness of history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography for detecting cardiovascular risks for sudden death in athletes. CONCLUSIONS: A PPE is required by most sport organizations in America, but research as to its effectiveness is very limited. PPEs have been mandatory in Italy for many years, and we can draw on some the data recorded over this time. Otherwise, very few studies in America or elsewhere have been performed on the PPE process. The research available indicates that the PPE is not implemented adequately or uniformly. An opportunity exists to create a standardized, validated PPE that meets medical standards for quality and provides sensitive, specific screening of potential participants in sport and exercise.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,019 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».