A partir de cette page vous pouvez :
Retourner au premier écran avec les dernières notices... |
Détail de l'auteur
Auteur Justin Losciale
Documents disponibles écrits par cet auteur
![](./images/expand_all.gif)
![](./images/collapse_all.gif)
![](./images/orderby_az.gif)
Description, Prediction, and Causation in Sport and Exercise Medicine Research: Resolving the Confusion to Improve Research Quality and Patient Outcomes / Justin Losciale in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, vol. 53,07 (Juillet 2023)
[article]
in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy > vol. 53,07 (Juillet 2023) . - p. 381-387
Titre : Description, Prediction, and Causation in Sport and Exercise Medicine Research: Resolving the Confusion to Improve Research Quality and Patient Outcomes Type de document : article de périodique Auteurs : Justin Losciale ; [et al.] Année de publication : 2023 Article en page(s) : p. 381-387 Langues : Français (fre) Descripteurs (mots clés) : [Thésaurus Mesh]Facteurs de risque
[Thésaurus Mesh]Prévention des accidentsRésumé : Researchers often assign a label (such as a risk factor or predictor) to a characteristic that is statistically associated with an outcome (such as future injury). Labeling signifies that the characteristic has an established clinical value. More often than not, these labels are assigned prematurely and haphazardly. The rampant practice conflates research goals, the ultimate clinical value of the findings, and many risk factors/predictors that may not warrant the label. To address these issues and improve injury prevention research, we (1) outline the problem; (2) clarify the key differences between the research goals of description, causation, and prediction/prognosis (along with labeling conventions); (3) differentiate the clinical implications for each label; and (4) frame an appropriate scientific process to follow before applying a label. Permalink : https://bibliotheque.helb-prigogine.be/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id= [article]Exemplaires
Cote Support Localisation Section Disponibilité aucun exemplaire The Association Between Passing Return-to-Sport Criteria and Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis / Justin Losciale in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, vol. 49, 2 (Février 2019)
[article]
in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy > vol. 49, 2 (Février 2019) . - p. 43-54
Titre : The Association Between Passing Return-to-Sport Criteria and Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis Type de document : article de périodique Auteurs : Justin Losciale ; [et al.] Année de publication : 2019 Article en page(s) : p. 43-54 Langues : Anglais (eng) Descripteurs (mots clés) : [Thésaurus Mesh]Ligament croisé antérieur
[Thésaurus Mesh]Traumatismes sportifs
[Thésaurus HELB]:Paramédical:Reprise du sportRésumé : Background
There is no consensus on the components of return-to-sport (RTS) testing following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction or whether passing RTS criteria can reduce a patient's risk of reinjury.
Objectives
To determine whether impartial, criteria-based RTS decisions are associated with less risk of a second ACL injury (either graft failure or contralateral ACL injury).
Methods
In this systematic review with meta-analysis, the authors conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global using database-specific vocabulary related to ACL reconstruction and return to sport. Individual study quality was assessed using the modified Downs and Black checklist, and overall quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation scale. Pooled risk difference (passed versus failed RTS criteria), injury incidence proportion, and the diagnostic accuracy of each RTS criterion were calculated.
Results
Four studies met the selection criteria. Overall, 42.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18%, 69%) of patients passed RTS criteria, and 14.4% (95% CI: 8%, 21%) of those who passed experienced a second ACL injury (graft rupture or contralateral ACL injury). There was a nonsignificant 3% reduced risk of a second ACL injury after passing RTS criteria (risk difference, −3%; 95% CI: −16%, 10%; I2 = 74%, P = .610). The evidence rating of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation scale was “very low quality,” due to imprecision and heterogeneity of the pooled risk difference estimate.
Conclusion
Passing RTS criteria did not show a statistically significant association with risk of a second ACL injury. The quality-of-evidence rating prevents a definitive conclusion on this question and indicates an opportunity for future research.
Level of Evidence Prognosis, Level 2aPermalink : https://bibliotheque.helb-prigogine.be/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id= [article]Exemplaires
Cote Support Localisation Section Disponibilité J Périodique Erasme - périodiques Périodiques Disponible