Heading in football: a systematic review of descriptors, definitions, and reporting methods used in heading incidence studies.

The primary objective of this systematic review was to describe the number and type of heading descriptors used in all published studies which report on heading incidence in football. The secondary objective was to detail the data collection and reporting methods used in the included studies to present heading incidence data. Eligible studies were identified through searches of five electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science, using a combination of free-text keywords (inception to 12th September 2023). Manual searching of reference lists and retrieved systematic reviews was also performed. A descriptive overview and synthesis of the results is presented. From 1620 potentially eligible studies, 71 studies were included, with the following key findings: 1) only 61% of studies defined a header with even fewer (23%) providing an operational definition of a header within the methods; 2) important study and player demographic data including year and country were often not reported; 3) reported heading descriptors and their coding options varied greatly; 4) visual identification of headers was essential when inertial measurement units were used to collect heading incidence data; and 5) there was a lack of standardisation in the reporting methods used in heading incidence studies making comparison between studies challenging. To address these findings, the development of a standardised, internationally supported, operational definition of a header and related heading descriptors should be prioritised. Further recommendations include the development of minimum reporting criteria for heading incidence research.

Evaluation of the SCAT 5 tool in the assessment of concussion in Para athletes: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if the sport concussion assessment tool version 5 (SCAT5) could be suitable for application to Para athletes with a visual impairment, a spinal cord injury, or a limb deficiency. METHODS: A 16-member expert panel performed a Delphi technique protocol. The first round encompassed an open-ended questionnaire, with round 2 onwards being composed of a series of closed-ended statements requiring each expert's opinion using a five-point Likert scale. A predetermined threshold of 66% was used to decide whether agreement had been reached by the panel. RESULTS: The Delphi study resulted in a four-round process. After round 1, 92 initial statements were constructed with 91 statements obtaining the targeted level of agreement by round 4. The expert panellist completion rate of the full four-round process was 94%. In the case of athletes with a suspected concussion with either limb deficiencies or spinal cord injuries, the panel agreed that a baseline assessment would be needed on record is ideal before a modified SCAT5 assessment. With respect to visual impairments, it was conceded that some tests were either difficult, infeasible or should be omitted entirely depending on the type of visual impairment. CONCLUSION: It is proposed that the SCAT5 could be conducted on athletes with limb deficiencies or spinal cord injuries with some minor modifications and by establishing a baseline assessment to form a comparison. However, it cannot be recommended for athletes with visual impairment in its current form. Further research is needed to determine how potential concussions could be more effectively evaluated in athletes with different impairments.

Dual Uncertainties: On Equipoise, Sex Differences and Chirality in Clinical Research.

Ethical justification for clinical research may invoke equipoise, an element of scientific uncertainty regarding the superior choice if presented with different therapeutic options. Given a relative lack of scientific knowledge available for females related to historic tendencies for research to focus predominantly on males, clinical equipoise alone when applied to the context of sex differences may not be sufficient for us to appreciate whether or how a therapy might vary in its effects depending upon participant sex. I explore the analogy of chirality or 'handedness,' arguing we might think of the two sexes as possessing this property: female and male are equally human, yet knowledge of the biology of one sex cannot be completely superimposed onto the other. I propose the concept of chiral equipoise, suggesting that in ethical deliberations around clinical research we consider not only the uncertainty between therapeutic options, but also ask: for which sex?

International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and critically appraise published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding healthcare of gender minority/trans people. DESIGN: Systematic review and quality appraisal using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool), including stakeholder domain prioritisation. SETTING: Six databases and six CPG websites were searched, and international key opinion leaders approached. PARTICIPANTS: CPGs relating to adults and/or children who are gender minority/trans with no exclusions due to comorbidities, except differences in sex development. INTERVENTION: Any health-related intervention connected to the care of gender minority/trans people. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and quality of international CPGs addressing the health of gender minority/trans people, information on estimated changes in mortality or quality of life (QoL), consistency of recommended interventions across CPGs, and appraisal of key messages for patients. RESULTS: Twelve international CPGs address gender minority/trans people's healthcare as complete (n=5), partial (n=4) or marginal (n=3) focus of guidance. The quality scores have a wide range and heterogeneity whichever AGREE II domain is prioritised. Five higher-quality CPGs focus on HIV and other blood-borne infections (overall assessment scores 69%-94%). Six lower-quality CPGs concern transition-specific interventions (overall assessment scores 11%-56%). None deal with primary care, mental health or longer-term medical issues. Sparse information on estimated changes in mortality and QoL is conflicting. Consistency between CPGs could not be examined due to unclear recommendations within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 7 and a lack of overlap between other CPGs. None provide key messages for patients. CONCLUSIONS: A paucity of high-quality guidance for gender minority/trans people exists, largely limited to HIV and transition, but not wider aspects of healthcare, mortality or QoL. Reference to AGREE II, use of systematic reviews, independent external review, stakeholder participation and patient facing material might improve future CPG quality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019154361.

De-sexing the Medical Record? An Examination of Sex Versus Gender Identity in the General Medical Council's Trans Healthcare Ethical Advice.

What do the terms sex and gender identity, or gender history, mean in a medical context? When does it matter to a healthcare professional whether a patient has male or female reproductive biology? How should a doctor approach a patient who does not wish for their biological sex to be openly acknowledged? The General Medical Council (GMC) advises doctors that transgender patients may have the marker for their sex amended to instead reflect their gender identity. This paper will attempt to critically examine two key points in the GMC trans healthcare ethical advice using Beauchamp and Childress' Four Principles approach, exploring how doctors might consider an incongruence between sex and gender identity in clinical practice.