Key result
The athletes-at-risk (AAR) method follows proper epidemiological principles and provides a more accurate estimation of sports injury rates compared to the athlete-exposures (AE) method.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The athletes-at-risk (AAR) method provides a more accurate estimation of sports injury rates compared to the traditional athlete-exposures (AE) method by following proper epidemiological principles.
A basic principle in epidemiology is that an injury rate should only include time when a person is ‘at risk’ for the outcome. However, when calculating injury rates in sports medicine, many investigators use a method known as ‘athlete- exposures’ (AE) which was originally proposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) surveillance programme.1 The AE method overestimates game injury rates when compared with using individual player time as the AE method attributes a full exposure to those who do not play a full game.2 Another method of capturing player exposure to injury is called the athletes-at-risk (AAR) method.2 The AAR method follows proper epidemiological principles, provides results very similar to the individual player time method in most contexts, and is easier to calculate. While the AE method will most often underestimate injury rates, the amount of underestimation depends on the sport and context. Our previous publication2 discusses these concepts …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
El‐Khoury et al. (2020) conducted a review in Sports injury. Athletes-at-risk (AAR) method vs. Athlete-exposures (AE) method was evaluated. The athletes-at-risk (AAR) method follows proper epidemiological principles and provides a more accurate estimation of sports injury rates compared to the athlete-exposures (AE) method.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: