Effect of bodychecking on rate of injuries among minor hockey players.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Bodychecking is a leading cause of injury among minor hockey players. Its value has been the subject of heated debate since Hockey Canada introduced bodychecking for competitive players as young as 9 years in the 1998/1999 season. Our goal was to determine whether lowering the legal age of bodychecking from 11 to 9 years affected the numbers of all hockey-related injuries and of those specifically related to bodychecking among minor hockey players in Ontario. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we evaluated data collected through the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program. The study's participants were male hockey league players aged 6-17 years who visited the emergency departments of 5 hospitals in Ontario for hockey-related injuries during 10 hockey seasons (September 1994 to May 2004). Injuries were classified as bodychecking-related or non-bodychecking-related. Injuries that occurred after the rule change took effect were compared with those that occurred before the rule's introduction. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 8552 hockey-related injuries were reported, 4460 (52.2%) of which were attributable to bodychecking. The odds ratio (OR) of a visit to the emergency department because of a bodychecking-related injury increased after the rule change (OR 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.38), the head and neck (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26-1.84) and the shoulder and arm (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.35) being the body parts with the most substantial increases in injury rate. The OR of an emergency visit because of concussion increased significantly in the Atom division after the rule change, which allowed bodychecking in the Atom division. After the rule change, the odds of a bodychecking-related injury was significantly higher in the Atom division (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.70-2.84). INTERPRETATION: In this study, the odds of injury increased with decreasing age of exposure to bodychecking. These findings add to the growing evidence that bodychecking holds greater risk than benefit for youth and support widespread calls to ban this practice.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».