Comparing the characteristics of snowboarders injured in a terrain park who present to the ski patrol, the emergency department or both

Ski patrol report forms are a common data source in ski/snowboard research, but it is unclear if those who only present to the emergency department (ED) are systematically different from those who see the ski patrol. To determine the proportion and characteristics of injured snowboarders who bypass the ski patrol before presenting to the ED, three groups of injured snowboarders were compared: presented to the ED only, ski patrol only and ski patrol and ED. Data were collected from ski patrol Accident Report Forms (ARFs), ED medical records and telephone interviews. There were 333 injured snowboarders (ED only: 34, ski patrol only: 107, both: 192). Ability, time of day, snow conditions or drugs/alcohol predicted ED only presentation. Concussions (RRR: 4.66; 95% CI: 1.83, 11.90), sprains/strains (RRR: 4.22; 95% CI: 1.87, 9.49), head/neck (RRR: 2.90; 95% CI: 1.48, 5.78), trunk (RRR: 4.17; 95% CI: 1.92, 9.09) or lower extremity (RRR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.32, 10.07) injuries were significantly more likely to present to ski patrol only versus ski patrol and ED. In conclusion, snowboarders who presented to the ED only had similar injuries as those who presented to both

Characteristics of injuries sustained by snowboarders in a terrain park

Abstract OBJECTIVE: To determine injured body regions and injury type resulting from snowboarding on aerial and nonaerial terrain park features and the accuracy of ski patrol assessments compared with physician diagnoses. DESIGN: Case series study. SETTING: An Alberta terrain park during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 seasons. PATIENTS: There were 333 snowboarders injured on features (379 injuries). ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS: Aerial or nonaerial terrain park feature used at injury, injured body region, injury type, and additional risk factors were recorded from ski patrol Accident Report Forms, emergency department medical records, and telephone interviews. MEASURES: Odds of injury to body regions and injury types on aerial versus nonaerial features were calculated using multinomial logistic regression. Accuracy of ski patrol injury assessments was examined through sensitivity, specificity, and kappa (κ) statistics. RESULTS: The wrist was the most commonly injured body region (20%), and fracture was the most common injury type (36%). Compared with the upper extremity, the odds of head/neck [odds ratio (OR), 2.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.37-4.85] and trunk (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.68-7.95) injuries were significantly greater on aerial features. There was no significant association between aerial versus nonaerial feature and injury type. The accuracy of ski patrol injury assessment was higher for injured body region (κ = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) than for injury type (κ = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Snowboarders were significantly more likely to sustain head/neck or trunk injuries than upper extremity injuries on aerial features. Investigators should acknowledge potential misclassification when using ski patrol injury assessments

Feature-specific terrain park-injury rates and risk factors in snowboarders : a case–control study

Background : Snowboarding is a popular albeit risky sport and terrain park (TP) injuries are more severe than regular slope injuries. TPs contain man-made features that facilitate aerial manoeuvres. The objectives of this study were to determine overall and feature-specific injury rates and the potential risk factors for TP injuries. Methods : Case–control study with exposure estimation, conducted in an Alberta TP during two ski seasons. Cases were snowboarders injured in the TP who presented to ski patrol and/or local emergency departments. Controls were uninjured snowboarders in the same TP. κ Statistics were used to measure the reliability of reported risk factor information. Injury rates were calculated and adjusted logistic regression was used to calculate the feature-specific odds of injury. Results : Overall, 333 cases and 1261 controls were enrolled. Reliability of risk factor information was κ>0.60 for 21/24 variables. The overall injury rate was 0.75/1000 runs. Rates were highest for jumps and half-pipe (both 2.56/1000 runs) and lowest for rails (0.43/1000 runs) and quarter-pipes (0.24/1000 runs). Compared with rails, there were increased odds of injury for half-pipe (OR 9.63; 95% CI 4.80 to 19.32), jumps (OR 4.29; 95% CI 2.72 to 6.76), mushroom (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.20 to 4.41) and kickers (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.27 to 3.12). Conclusions : Higher feature-specific injury rates and increased odds of injury were associated with features that promote aerial manoeuvres or a large drop to the ground. Further research is required to determine ways to increase snowboarder safety in the TP

Differences in injury and concussion rates in a cohort of Canadian female and male youth Rugby Union:A step towards targeted prevention strategies

Objective: To examine differences in match and training musculoskeletal injury and concussion rates and describe mechanisms of concussion while considering previous playing experience in female and male Canadian high school Rugby Union ('rugby') players. Methods: A 2-year prospective cohort study was completed in a high school league (n=361 females, 421 player-seasons; n=429 males, 481 player-seasons) in Calgary, Canada over the 2018 and 2019 rugby playing seasons. Baseline testing was completed at the start of each season and injury surveillance and individual player participation through session attendance was documented to quantify individual-level player exposure hours. Injury incidence rates (IRs) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated using Poisson regression, offset by player exposure hours and clustered by team. Results: Overall match IR for females was 62% higher than males (overall IRR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.18) and the overall training IR was twice as high for females (overall IRR=2.15, 95% CI: 1.40 to 3.32). The female match concussion IR was 70% higher than the males (concussion IRR=1.70, 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.69). Females had a 75% greater tackle-related IR compared with males (IRR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.56). Additionally, female tacklers had a twofold greater rate of injury compared with male tacklers (IRR=2.17, 95% CI: 1.14 to 4.14). Previous playing experience was not associated with tackle-related injury or concussion IRs. Conclusion: The rate of injury and concussion was significantly higher in females within this Canadian high school cohort. These results emphasise the need for development, implementation and evaluation of female-specific injury and concussion prevention strategies to reduce injury and concussion in female youth rugby.</p

Environmental Determinants of Bicycling Injuries in Alberta, Canada

This study examined environmental risk factors for bicycling injuries, by combining data on bicyclist injuries collected by interviews in the emergency department (ED) with street-level environmental audits of injury locations, capturing path, roadway, safety, land use, and aesthetic characteristics. Cases were bicyclists struck by a motor vehicle (MV) or with severe injuries (hospitalized). Controls were bicyclists who were not hit by a car or those seen and discharged from the ED, matched on time and day of injury. Logistic regression odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for age, sex, peak time, and bicyclist speed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to relate injury risk to environmental characteristics. Factors contributing to MV events included greater traffic volume (OR 5.13; 95% CI [1.44, 18.27]), intersections (OR 6.89; 95% CI [1.48, 32.14]), retail establishments (OR 5.56; 95% CI [1.72, 17.98]), and path obstructions (OR 3.83; 95% CI [1.03, 14.25]). Locations where the road was in good condition (OR 0.25; 95% CI [0.07, 0.96]) and where there was high surveillance from surrounding buildings (OR 0.32; 95% CI [0.13, 0.82]) were associated with less severe injuries. These findings could be used by bicyclists and transportation planners to improve safety

Injury Rates, Mechanisms, Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies in Youth Rugby Union: What’s All the Ruck-Us About? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Rugby Union is a collision team sport played globally. Despite this, significant concerns have been raised regarding the sport’s safety, particularly in youth players. Given this, a review of injury rates, risk factors and prevention strategies is required across different youth age groups as well as in males and females. Objective: The objective of this systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis was to investigate injury and concussion rates, risk factors and primary prevention strategies in youth rugby. Methods: To be included, studies were required to report either rates, risk factors or prevention strategies in youth rugby and to have a randomised controlled trial, quasi-experimental, cohort, case control, or ecological study design. Exclusion criteria included non-peer-reviewed grey literature, conference abstracts, case studies, previous systematic reviews and studies not written in English. Nine databases were searched. The full search strategy and list of sources are available and pre-registered on PROSPERO (Ref: CRD42020208343). Each study was assessed for risk of bias using the Downs and Black quality assessment tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using a DerSimonian Laird random effect model for each age group and sex. Results: Sixty-nine studies were included in this SR. The match injury rates (using a 24-h time-loss definition) were 40.2/1000 match hours (95% CI 13.9–66.5) in males and 69.0/1000 match hours (95% CI 46.8–91.2) in females. Concussion rates were 6.2/1000 player-hours (95% CI 5.0–7.4) for males and 33.9/1000 player-hours (95% CI: 24.1–43.7) for females. The most common injury site was lower extremity (males) and the head/neck (females). The most common injury type was ligament sprain (males) and concussion (females). The tackle was the most common event associated with injury in matches (55% male, 71% females). Median time loss was 21 days for males and 17 days for females. Twenty-three risk factors were reported. The risk factors with the strongest evidence were higher levels of play and increasing age. Primary injury prevention strategies were the focus of only eight studies and included law changes (n = 2), equipment (n = 4), education (n = 1) and training (n = 1). The prevention strategy with the most promising evidence was neuromuscular training. The primary limitations included a broad range of injury definitions (n = 9) and rate denominators (n = 11) used, as well as a limited number of studies which could be included in the meta-analysis for females (n = 2). Conclusion: A focus on high-quality risk factor and primary prevention evaluation should be considered in future studies. Targeting primary prevention and stakeholder education remain key strategies in the prevention, recognition and management of injuries and concussions in youth rugby

Injury Rates, Mechanisms, Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies in Youth Rugby Union: What’s All the Ruck-Us About? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BackgroundRugby Union is a collision team sport played globally. Despite this, significant concerns have been raised regarding the sport’s safety, particularly in youth players. Given this, a review of injury rates, risk factors and prevention strategies is required across different youth age groups as well as in males and females.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis was to investigate injury and concussion rates, risk factors and primary prevention strategies in youth rugby.MethodsTo be included, studies were required to report either rates, risk factors or prevention strategies in youth rugby and to have a randomised controlled trial, quasi-experimental, cohort, case control, or ecological study design. Exclusion criteria included non-peer-reviewed grey literature, conference abstracts, case studies, previous systematic reviews and studies not written in English. Nine databases were searched. The full search strategy and list of sources are available and pre-registered on PROSPERO (Ref: CRD42020208343). Each study was assessed for risk of bias using the Downs and Black quality assessment tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using a DerSimonian Laird random effect model for each age group and sex.ResultsSixty-nine studies were included in this SR. The match injury rates (using a 24-h time-loss definition) were 40.2/1000 match hours (95% CI 13.9–66.5) in males and 69.0/1000 match hours (95% CI 46.8–91.2) in females. Concussion rates were 6.2/1000 player-hours (95% CI 5.0–7.4) for males and 33.9/1000 player-hours (95% CI: 24.1–43.7) for females. The most common injury site was lower extremity (males) and the head/neck (females). The most common injury type was ligament sprain (males) and concussion (females). The tackle was the most common event associated with injury in matches (55% male, 71% females). Median time loss was 21 days for males and 17 days for females. Twenty-three risk factors were reported. The risk factors with the strongest evidence were higher levels of play and increasing age. Primary injury prevention strategies were the focus of only eight studies and included law changes (n = 2), equipment (n = 4), education (n = 1) and training (n = 1). The prevention strategy with the most promising evidence was neuromuscular training. The primary limitations included a broad range of injury definitions (n = 9) and rate denominators (n = 11) used, as well as a limited number of studies which could be included in the meta-analysis for females (n = 2).ConclusionA focus on high-quality risk factor and primary prevention evaluation should be considered in future studies. Targeting primary prevention and stakeholder education remain key strategies in the prevention, recognition and management of injuries and concussions in youth rugby

Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP): Design for a Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Two Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain

Background: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are evidence-based nonpharmacological treatments for treating chronic pain. However, the predominant MBI, mindfulness-based stress reduction, has features that pose significant implementation barriers. Objectives: This study will test two approaches to delivering MBIs for improving Veterans' chronic pain and mental health comorbidities. These two approaches address key implementation barriers. Methods: We will conduct a four-site, three-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial, Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP), to test the effectiveness of two MBIs at improving pain and mental health comorbidities. Mobile+Group LAMP consists of prerecorded modules presented by a mindfulness instructor that are viewed in an online group setting and interspersed with discussions led by a facilitator. Mobile LAMP consists of the same prerecorded modules but does not include a group component. We will test whether either of these MBIs will be more effective than usual care at improving chronic pain and whether the Mobile+Group LAMP will be more effective than Mobile LAMP at improving chronic pain. Comparisons for the primary hypotheses will be conducted with continuous outcomes (Brief Pain Inventory interference score) repeated at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary hypotheses are that Mobile+Group LAMP and Mobile LAMP will be more effective than usual care at improving secondary outcomes (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, depression). We will also confirm the comparisons for the primary and secondary hypotheses in gender-specific strata. Implications: This trial is expected to result in two approaches for delivering MBIs that will optimize engagement, adherence, and sustainability and be able to reach large numbers of Veterans

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570