Where do archers hurt? Epidemiology of injuries during archery practice.

BACKGROUND: The risk of injury in archery is supposedly low. However, relations between pain, shooting phases and types of bow have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: Understanding the biomechanical mechanisms of archery-related injuries. METHODS: Online survey for archers from all types of bow. Variables were analyzed using contingency tables and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: 396 surveys were completed. 36.9% of the archers had practiced archery for more than 10 years, 23.3% between 5 and 10 years. Olympic recurve bow was the most commonly used (38.2%), followed by traditional (23.3%) and compound (22.0%). 57.3% of the archers suffered some kind of injury during archery practice. Drawing shoulder (28.2%) and neck/back injuries (19.9%) were the most prevalent, preventing 50.3% of those who suffered them from continuing archery practice. There was a moderate association between drawing arm injuries and symptomatology in the drawing phase, especially in the shoulder region (0.55), elbow (0.20), and hand (0.13), and to a lesser extent in the neck/back (0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that injury chronicity is frequent on archery. Correlations between types of bow, phases of the shoot and areas of pain could be a starting point for future studies on the repercussions of different types of injuries in archery practice.

Validation of the patients-specific functional scale in patients with haemophilia.

INTRODUCTION: A complete functional assessment is essential to measure health status and treatment effects in patients with haemophilia. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is a reliable, valid, simple and quick scale that measures physical function in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. However, the reliability and validity of the PSFS have not been evaluated in patients with haemophilia. AIM: The aim of this study was to validate the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in patients with haemophilia. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with haemophilia participated in the study. They completed the PSFS and the Haemophilia Activity List (HAL) scales by telephone during an initial session, and then repeated the assessment in a follow-up session 1 week apart. Reliability was analysed by the internal correlation coefficient (ICC), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the smallest detectable change (SDC). The concurrent validity of the PSFS was determined by correlating the initial score of the PSFS scale to the initial score of the HAL scale. Correlations were calculated by means of scatter plots and Pearson product-moment r correlation coefficient. RESULTS: ICC and SEM values showed excellent reliability for the PSFS scale, with a SDC of 1. A significant moderate correlation was found between the results of the PSFS and the HAL (r = .57, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The PSFS is a reliable and valid scale to measure the functionality of people with haemophilia.