British Journal of Sports Medicine

Ardern, Clare L; Büttner, Fionn; Andrade, Renato; Weir, Adam; Ashe, Maureen C; Holden, Sinead; Impellizzeri, Franco M; Delahunt, Eamonn; Dijkstra, H Paul; Mathieson, Stephanie; Rathleff, Michael Skovdal; Reurink, Guus; Sherrington, Catherine; Stamatakis, Emmanuel; Vicenzino, Bill; Whittaker, Jackie L; Wright, Alexis A; Clarke, Mike; Moher, David; Page, Matthew J; Khan, Karim M; Winters, Marinus

doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-103987pmid: 34625401

Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality.

Gabel, Leigh; Liphardt, Anna-Maria; Hulme, Paul A; Heer, Martina; Zwart, Sara R; Sibonga, Jean D; Smith, Scott M; Boyd, Steven K

doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103602pmid: 33597120

ObjectivesBone loss remains a primary health concern for astronauts, despite in-flight exercise. We examined changes in bone microarchitecture, density and strength before and after long-duration spaceflight in relation to biochemical markers of bone turnover and exercise.MethodsSeventeen astronauts had their distal tibiae and radii imaged before and after space missions to the International Space Station using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT. We estimated bone strength using finite element analysis and acquired blood and urine biochemical markers of bone turnover before, during and after spaceflight. Pre-flight exercise history and in-flight exercise logs were obtained. Mixed effects models examined changes in bone and biochemical variables and their relationship with mission duration and exercise.ResultsAt the distal tibia, median cumulative losses after spaceflight were −2.9% to −4.3% for bone strength and total volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) and −0.8% to −2.6% for trabecular vBMD, bone volume fraction, thickness and cortical vBMD. Mission duration (range 3.5–7 months) significantly predicted bone loss and crewmembers with higher concentrations of biomarkers of bone turnover before spaceflight experienced greater losses in tibia bone strength and density. Lower body resistance training volume (repetitions per week) increased 3–6 times in-flight compared with pre-spaceflight. Increases in training volume predicted preservation of tibia bone strength and trabecular vBMD and thickness.ConclusionsFindings highlight the fundamental relationship between mission duration and bone loss. Pre-flight markers of bone turnover and exercise history may identify crewmembers at greatest risk of bone loss due to unloading and may focus preventative measures.

Steffen, Kathrin; Clarsen, Benjamin; Gjelsvik, Hilde; Haugvad, Lars; Koivisto-Mørk, Anu; Bahr, Roald; Berge, Hilde Moseby

doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104489pmid: 34607800

ObjectiveTo describe the illness and injury pattern of Norwegian Para athletes over five consecutive Paralympic Summer and Winter Games cycles and to identify which health problems should be targeted in risk management plans with respect to impairment types.MethodsWe monitored athletes from 12 to 18 months prior to each Game using a weekly online questionnaire (Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center-H2 (OSTRC-H2)). We asked them to report all health problems they had experienced in the preceding 7 days, irrespective of their consequences on their sports participation or performance and whether they had sought medical attention.ResultsBetween 2011 and 2020, 94 candidate athletes were included in this monitoring programme and prepared to represent Norway; of these, 66 (71%) were finally selected for multiple Paralympic Games. The overall response rate to the weekly questionnaires was 87%. At any given time during the five observation cycles, 37% of the athletes (95% CI 36% to 38%) reported having at least one health problem. Athletes with neurological impairments (n=51) lost 10 days per year due to respiratory problems (95% CI 9 to 11) compared with 9 days (8-10) among those with musculoskeletal impairments (n=37). Gastrointestinal problems caused a time loss of on average 4 days per year in athletes with neurological impairments versus 1 day in athletes with musculoskeletal impairments (mean difference 2.7 days, 2.1–3.3). Musculoskeletal injuries generated a high burden for both athlete groups, in particular, to the elbow, shoulder and lumbosacral regions.ConclusionAt any given time, nearly two out of five elite Norwegian Para athletes reported at least one health problem. Respiratory tract and other infections; gastrointestinal problems, injuries to the shoulder, elbow and lumbosacral regions represented the greatest health burden. Our findings can help guide the allocation of clinical resources, which should include a broad network of medical specialists, together with dieticians and physiotherapists, to meet the health challenges in Para athletes.

Price, Oliver J; Sewry, Nicola; Schwellnus, Martin; Backer, Vibeke; Reier-Nilsen, Tonje; Bougault, Valerie; Pedersen, Lars; Chenuel, Bruno; Larsson, Kjell; Hull, James H

doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104601

Snyders, Carolette; Pyne, David B; Sewry, Nicola; Hull, James H; Kaulback, Kelly; Schwellnus, Martin

doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104719pmid: 34789459

ObjectiveTo determine the days until return to sport (RTS) after acute respiratory illness (ARill), frequency of time loss after ARill resulting in >1 day lost from training/competition, and symptom duration (days) of ARill in athletes.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, EBSCOhost, Web of Science, January 1990–July 2020.Eligibility criteriaOriginal research articles published in English on athletes/military recruits (15–65 years) with symptoms/diagnosis of an ARill and reporting any of the following: days until RTS after ARill, frequency (%) of time loss >1 day after ARill or symptom duration (days) of ARill.Results767 articles were identified; 54 were included (n=31 065 athletes). 4 studies reported days until RTS (range: 0–8.5 days). Frequency (%) of time loss >1 day after ARill was 20.4% (95% CI 15.3% to 25.4%). The mean symptom duration for all ARill was 7.1 days (95% CI 6.2 to 8.0). Results were similar between subgroups: pathological classification (acute respiratory infection (ARinf) vs undiagnosed ARill), anatomical classification (upper vs general ARill) or diagnostic method of ARinf (symptoms, physical examination, special investigations identifying pathogens).ConclusionsIn 80% of ARill in athletes, no days were lost from training/competition. The mean duration of ARill symptoms in athletes was 7 days. Outcomes were not influenced by pathological or anatomical classification of ARill, or in ARinf diagnosed by various methods. Current data are limited, and future studies with standardised approaches to definitions, diagnostic methods and classifications of ARill are needed to obtain detailed clinical, laboratory and specific pathogen data to inform RTS.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020160479.

Mountjoy, Margo; Vertommen, Tine; Denhollander, Rachael; Kennedy, Sheldon; Majoor, Renald

doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104625pmid: 35110362

Sport, as a microcosm of society, is not immune to the abuse of its stakeholders. Attention to abuse in sport has recently become a priority for sport organisations following several high-profile cases of athlete abuse from different sports around the world. Resulting from this increased awareness, many sport organisations have commenced work in the field of athlete safeguarding including the development of policy, educational programmes, reporting pathways, investigation mechanisms and research initiatives. One mechanism adopted by many sport organisations to support their safeguarding efforts is the engagement of survivors of abuse in sport: typically, as guest speakers at conferences or educational events. Unfortunately, many sport organisations do not have the knowledge or trauma-informed expertise to engage survivors safely and effectively; and in doing so, may unintentionally retraumatise the survivor if erroneous methods of engagement are employed. For some survivors, this experience may compound the original harms, and thus it also represents an area of vulnerability for the organising entity. The purpose of this paper is to explore the rationale for partnering with survivors of abuse in sport in safeguarding initiatives and to propose a living conceptual framework to support effective and safe survivor engagement in safeguarding initiatives. We will explore the underpinning scientific background, as well as the ‘why’, and ‘how’ of survivor engagement to inform sport organisations, research scientists, policy-makers, conference organisers, safeguarding officers, sport medicine clinicians and survivors themselves.