Identifying and Minimizing Incentives for Competing Interests in Sports Medicine Publications.

Academics in sports medicine as well as other medical fields are generally expected to publish research and opinions in peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process is intended to protect against the publication of flawed research and unsubstantiated claims. However, both financial and non-financial competing interests may result in sub-optimal results by affecting investigators, editors, peer reviewers, academic institutions, and publishers. In this article, we focus on the non-financial competing interests created in our current academic system. Because these competing interests are embedded in our current scholastic framework, the potential biases are difficult to quantify. To minimize the effect of these competing interests, we review and highlight some underlying incentives for each stakeholder and some potential solutions to mitigate their effects.

Principles of musculoskeletal sport injuries for epidemiologists: a review.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal injuries are a common occurrence in sport. The goal of sport injury epidemiology is to study these injuries at a population level to inform their prevention and treatment. MAIN BODY: This review provides an overview of musculoskeletal sport injuries and the musculoskeletal system from a biological and epidemiologic perspective, including injury mechanism, categorizations and types of sport injuries, healing, and subsequent injuries. It is meant to provide a concise introductory substantive background of musculoskeletal sport injuries for epidemiologists who may not have formal training in the underlying anatomy and pathophysiology. CONCLUSION: An understanding of sport injuries is important for researchers in sport injury epidemiology when determining how to best define and assess their research questions and measures.

Identifiability of causal effects in test-negative design studies.

Causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are often used to select variables in a regression model to identify causal effects. Outcome-based sampling studies, such as the 'test-negative design' used to assess vaccine effectiveness, present unique challenges that are not addressed by the common back-door criterion. Here we discuss intuitive, graphical approaches to explain why the common back-door criterion cannot be used for identification of population average causal effects with outcome-based sampling studies. We also describe graphical rules that can be used instead in outcome-based sampling studies when the objective is limited to determining if the causal odds ratio is identifiable, and illustrate recent changes to the free online software Dagitty which incorporate these principles.

Causal effects, workload and injury risk: The importance of specifying the research question.

OBJECTIVES: To illustrate why the research question determines whether and how sport medicine investigators should adjust for workload when interested in interventions or causal risk factors for injury. DESIGN: Theoretical conceptualization. METHODS: We use current concepts of causal inference to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of adjusting for workload through different analytic approaches when evaluating causal effects on injury risk. RESULTS: When a risk factor of interest changes workload, including workload in the regression will cause bias. When workload represents time-at-risk (e.g. games played, minutes run), including workload as an offset in Poisson regression provides a comparison of injury rates (injuries per unit time). This is equivalent to including log(workload) as an independent variable with the coefficient fixed to 1. If workload is included as an independent variable instead of an offset, using log(workload) rather than workload is more consistent with theory. This practice is similar to the principles of allometric scaling. When workload represents a combination of both time-at-risk and intensity, such as with session ratings of perceived exertion, the optimal analytical strategy may require modeling time-at-risk and intensity separately rather than as one factor. CONCLUSIONS: Whether to account for recent workload or not, and how to account for recent workload, depends on the research question and the causal assumptions, both of which should be explicitly stated.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring COVID-19 infection risk among health care workers (HCWs) is a public health priority. We examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs following the fall infection surge in Minnesota, and before and after COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, we assessed demographic and occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted two rounds of seroprevalence testing among a cohort of HCWs: samples in round 1 were collected from 11/22/20-02/21/21 and in round 2 from 12/18/20-02/15/21. Demographic and occupational exposures assessed with logistic regression were age, sex, healthcare role and setting, and number of children in the household. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 IgG seropositivity. A secondary outcome, SARS-CoV-2 infection, included both seropositivity and self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. RESULTS: In total, 459 HCWs were tested. 43/454 (9.47%) had a seropositive sample 1 and 75/423 (17.7%) had a seropositive sample 2. By time of sample 2 collection, 54% of participants had received at least one vaccine dose and seroprevalence was 13% among unvaccinated individuals. Relative to physicians, the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection in other roles were increased (Nurse Practitioner: OR[95%CI] 1.93[0.57,6.53], Physician's Assistant: 1.69[0.38,7.52], Nurse: 2.33[0.94,5.78], Paramedic/EMTs: 3.86[0.78,19.0], other: 1.68[0.58,4.85]). The workplace setting was associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.04). SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among HCWs reporting duties in the ICU vs. those working in an ambulatory clinic was elevated: OR[95%CI] 2.17[1.01,4.68]. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCW increased during our study period which was consistent with community infection rates. HCW role and setting-particularly working in the ICU-is associated with higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening among symptom-free healthcare workers.

Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is possible among symptom-free individuals. Patients are avoiding medically necessary healthcare visits for fear of becoming infected in the healthcare setting. We screened 489 symptom-free healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 and found no positive results, strongly suggesting that the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was <1%.

In suspected SARS-CoV-2, rapid antigen detection tests had 67% to 73% sensitivity and 98% to 100% specificity.

SOURCE CITATION: Favresse J, Gillot C, Oliveira M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of rapid and automated antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Clin Med. 2021;10:265. 33450853.

Acute Effect of Height-Adjustable Workstations on Blood Glucose Levels in Women With Impaired Fasting Glucose Levels While Working: A Pilot Study.

Objective: To examine the effect on continuously monitored blood glucose (CGM) among participants with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) who used a height-adjustable desk while working. Methods: The study was a repeated measures pilot study in overweight or obese women who had IFG (blood glucose [BG] >100 mg/dL) and a sedentary job. Blood glucose was monitored with CGM devices during two 1-week periods at work; 1 week in the seated position and 1 week using alternate bouts of sitting and standing (by adjusting their desks) throughout the workday. Results: Ten women completed the study. Sedentary time significantly predicted BG independently of diet and overall physical activity (P=.02). Dietary carbohydrates, protein, and fat were significant predictors of BG (P<.001). Conclusions: Sedentary time is a strong predictor of increased BG in women with IFG and a sedentary job.

SARS-CoV-2 Screening Among Symptom-Free Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is possible among symptom-free individuals and some patients are avoiding medically necessary healthcare visits for fear of becoming infected in the healthcare setting. Limited data are available on the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptom-free U.S. healthcare workers (HCW). METHODS: A cross-sectional convenience sample of symptom-free HCWs from the metropolitan area surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota was enrolled between April 20 th and June 24 th , 2020. A participant self-collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) was obtained. SARS-CoV-2 infection was assessed via polymerase chain reaction. Participants were queried about their willingness to repeat a self-collection NPS for diagnostic purposes. We had >95% power to detect at least one positive test if the true underlying prevalence of SARS-CoV2 was ≥1%. RESULTS: Among n=489 participants 80% were female and mean age±SD was 41±11. Participants reported being physicians (14%), nurse practitioners (8%), physician's assistants (4%), nurses (51%), medics (3%), or other which predominantly included laboratory technicians and administrative roles (22%). Exposure to a known/suspected COVID-19 case in the 14 days prior to enrollment was reported in 40% of participants. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in any participant. Over 95% of participants reported a willingness to repeat a self-collected NP swab in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely <1% in a convenience sample of symptom-free Minnesota healthcare workers from April 20 th and June 24 th , 2020. Self-collected NP swabs are well-tolerated and a viable alternative to provider-collected swabs to preserve PPE.