Epidemiology of Lateral Ligament Complex Tears of the Ankle in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Sports: 2014-15 Through 2018-19
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies of lateral ankle sprains in NCAA sports are important in appraising the burden of this injury and informing prevention efforts. PURPOSE: To describe the epidemiology of lateral ankle sprains in NCAA sports during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: Injury and exposure information collected within the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP) were examined. Counts, rates, and proportions of lateral ankle sprains were used to describe injury incidence by sport, event type (practices, competitions), season segment (preseason, regular season, postseason), injury mechanism (player contact, noncontact, and surface contact, injury history (new, recurrent), and time loss (time loss [≥1 day], non-time loss). Injury rate ratios (IRRs) were used to examine differential injury rates, and injury proportion ratios (IPRs) were used to examine differential distributions. RESULTS: A total of 3910 lateral ankle sprains were reported (4.61 per 10,000 athlete exposures) during the study period, and the overall rate was highest in men's basketball (11.82 per 10,000 athlete exposures). The competition-related injury rate was higher than the practice-related rate (IRR, 3.24; 95% CI, 3.04-3.45), and across season segments, the overall rate was highest in preseason (4.99 per 10,000 athlete exposures). Lateral ankle sprains were most often attributed to player-contact mechanisms in men's (43.2%) and women's sports (35.1%), although injuries were more prevalently attributed to player contact in men's than in women's sports (IPR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.34). Overall, 49.7% of all lateral ankle sprains were time loss injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study are consistent with previous epidemiological investigations of lateral ankle sprains among NCAA athletes. Results offer additional context on differential injury mechanisms between men's and women's sports and on injury risk across the competitive season. Future research may examine the effectiveness of deploying injury prevention programs before the start of a season.
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 | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».