Sport Medicine Diagnostic Coding System (SMDCS) and the Orchard Sports Injury and Illness Classification System (OSIICS): revised 2020 consensus versions.

Coding in sports medicine generally uses sports-specific coding systems rather than the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), because of superior applicability to the profile of injury and illness presentations in sport. New categories for coding were agreed on in the 'International Olympic Committee (IOC) consensus statement: Methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sports 2020.' We explain the process for determining the new categories and update both the Sport Medicine Diagnostic Coding System (SMDCS) and the Orchard Sports Injury and Illness Classification System (OSIICS) with new versions that operationalise the new consensus categories. The author group included members from an expert group attending the IOC consensus conference. The primary authors of the SMDCS (WM) and OSIICS (JO) produced new versions that were then agreed on by the remaining authors using expert consensus methodology. The SMDCS and OSIICS systems have been adjusted and confirmed through a consensus process to align with the IOC consensus statement to facilitate translation between the two systems. Problematic areas for defining body part categories included the groin and ankle regions. For illness codes, in contrast to the ICD, we elected to have a taxonomy of 'organ system/region' (eg, cardiovascular and respiratory), followed by an 'aetiology/pathology' (eg, environmental, infectious disease and allergy). Companion data files have been produced that provide translations between the coding systems. The similar structure of coding underpinning the OSIICS and SMDCS systems aligns the new versions of these systems with the IOC consensus statement and also facilitates easier translation between the two systems. These coding systems are freely available to the sport and exercise research community.

International Olympic Committee consensus statement: methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sport 2020 (including STROBE Extension for Sport Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS)).

Injury and illness surveillance, and epidemiological studies, are fundamental elements of concerted efforts to protect the health of the athlete. To encourage consistency in the definitions and methodology used, and to enable data across studies to be compared, research groups have published 11 sport-specific or setting-specific consensus statements on sports injury (and, eventually, illness) epidemiology to date. Our objective was to further strengthen consistency in data collection, injury definitions and research reporting through an updated set of recommendations for sports injury and illness studies, including a new Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist extension. The IOC invited a working group of international experts to review relevant literature and provide recommendations. The procedure included an open online survey, several stages of text drafting and consultation by working groups and a 3-day consensus meeting in October 2019. This statement includes recommendations for data collection and research reporting covering key components: defining and classifying health problems; severity of health problems; capturing and reporting athlete exposure; expressing risk; burden of health problems; study population characteristics and data collection methods. Based on these, we also developed a new reporting guideline as a STROBE Extension-the STROBE Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS). The IOC encourages ongoing in- and out-of-competition surveillance programmes and studies to describe injury and illness trends and patterns, understand their causes and develop measures to protect the health of the athlete. Implementation of the methods outlined in this statement will advance consistency in data collection and research reporting.

Coding sports injury surveillance data: has version 10 of the Orchard Sports Injury Classification System improved the classification of sports medicine diagnoses?

OBJECTIVES: To compare versions 8 and 10 of the Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS) to determine whether the revised version of OSICS has improved its use in a sports medicine setting, and to assess the inter-rater reliability of OSICS-10. METHODS: Injury surveillance data, gathered over a 2 year period in professional football, cricket and rugby union to produce 335 diagnoses, were coded with both OSICS-8 and OSICS-10. Code-diagnosis agreement was assessed for OSICS-8 in terms of whether a diagnosis was codeable or noncodeable, and for OSICS-10 by evaluating the highest available OSICS-10 tier of coding. Eight clinicians coded a list of 20 diagnoses, comprising a range of pathologies to all gross anatomical regions, which were compared to assess inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: All diagnoses could be assigned an appropriate code with OSICS-10, compared with 87% of diagnoses that could be assigned an OSICS-8 code. Contusions comprised almost half of OSICS-8 noncodeable diagnoses. OSICS-10 tier 2 codes accounted for 20% of diagnoses coded with the updated system. Of these 20%, almost half contained a more detailed diagnosis that did not have an available OSICS-10 tier 3 or 4 code. Inter-rater reliability increased with decreasing diagnostic detail, with an overall level shown to be moderate (k = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: OSICS-10 is a more encompassing system than OSICS-8 to use in classifying sports medicine diagnoses, and has a moderate level of inter-rater reliability. Further minor revision may be required to address lack of detail in some strain, effusion and contusion codes.

Feasibility of a classification system for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and sports therapy interventions for mobility and self-care in spinal cord injury rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of a classification system developed to record the contents of treatment sessions intended to improve mobility and self-care by persons with a spinal cord injury (SCI) in clinical rehabilitation. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Three Dutch SCI facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=36) as well as physical therapists (n=20), occupational therapists (n=14), and sports therapists (n=2). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaires to assess the clarity of the classification system, time needed to record 1 treatment session, and the distribution of categories and interventions. The classification system consisted of 28 categories at 3 levels of functioning: basic functions (eg, muscle power), basic activities (eg, transfers), and complex activities (eg, walking and moving around outside). RESULTS: Therapists used 1625 codes to record 856 treatment sessions of 142 patients. For 93% of the treatment sessions, the coding caused little or no doubt. The therapists were able to classify 86.3% of the treatment sessions within 3 minutes. The classification system was rated as useful and easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the suitability of our classification system as a tool to record the contents of SCI treatment sessions in different settings and by different therapists.

Classifying sports medicine diagnoses: a comparison of the International classification of diseases 10-Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) and the Orchard sports injury classification system (OSICS-8).

BACKGROUND: The International classification of diseases 10-Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) and the Orchard sports injury classification system (OSICS-8) are two classifications currently being used in sports injury research. OBJECTIVES: To compare these two systems to determine which was the more reliable and easier to apply in the classification of injury diagnoses of patients who presented to sports physicians in private sports medicine practice. METHODS: Ten sports physicians/sports physician registrars each coded one of 10 different lists of 30 sports medicine diagnoses according to both ICD-10-AM and OSICS-8 in random order. The coders noted the time taken to apply each classification system, and allocated an ease of fit score for individual diagnoses into the systems. The 300 diagnoses were each coded twice more by "expert" coders from each system, and these results compared with those of the 10 volunteers. RESULTS: Overall, there was a higher level of agreement between the different coders for OSICS-8 than for ICD-10-AM. On average, it was 23.5 minutes quicker to complete the task with OSICS-8 than with ICD-10-AM. Furthermore, there was also higher concordance between the three coders with OSICS-8. Subjective analysis of the codes assigned indicated reasons for disagreement and showed that, in some instances, even the "expert" coders had difficulties in assigning the most appropriate codes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, OSICS-8 appears to be the preferred system for use by inexperienced coders in sports medicine research. The agreement between coders was, however, lower than expected. It is recommended that changes be made to both OSICS-8 and ICD-10-AM to improve their reliability for use in sports medicine research.

Classification of Prevention in Sports Medicine and Epidemiology.

It is today recognized that a large share of manifestations of ill health associated with sports participation is preventable and that a focus should be on implementation of effective prevention programs. One hindrance for implementation of effective preventive measures in sports medicine may be that an update of preventive frameworks to the current health challenges has not been performed. We introduce classifications of prevention that are adjusted to the health challenges faced by sports participants in the present day. To enable more precise characterizations of preventive measures, we find it necessary to describe them in two dimensions. In one dimension, pathological developments in the body are used as a basis for classification of preventive measures, while the other dimension classifies prevention on the grounds of epidemiological risk indicators. We conclude that longitudinal research combining diagnostic procedures, surveillance, and targeted interventions is needed to enable the introduction of prevention programs for athletes in the beginning of their sporting career at the pre-diagnostic stage, as well as suitable prevention measures for the adult elite athletes. A more distinct classification of prevention supports a specific and cost-effective planning and translation of sports injury prevention and safety promotion adjusted to the delivery settings, various injury types, and different groups of athletes. The present classifications constitute an additional conceptual foundation for such efforts.

Lesiones deportivas frecuentes en el futbol barrial del cantón Quito

En el presente trabajo se realizó un estudio de los diagnósticos en el Centro de Medicina del Deporte, Dr, Asdrúbal de la Torre, duante el período comprendido entre los meses de enero de 1990 a septiembre de 1991. Este análisis se centró en los deportistas que practican el fútbol a nivel barrial en Quito. En el estudio se determinaron las edades de los deportistas con mayor porcentaje de afectación, siendo éstas de 20 a 34 años, grupo que equivale al 75,6 por ciento del total de consultas (1438). Los deportistas están expuestos a recibir traumatismos en diferentes regiones, siendo más afectados los miembros inferiores (el 77.9 por ciento), en especial la articulación de la rodilla con un 43,3 por ciento del total de consultas. El lado de mayor afectación en los miembros inferiores fue el derecho, con un 66 por ciento...