Olympic Committee Consensus Statement Research Articles

Injury incidence in elite youth field hockey players at the 2016 European Championships.

Despite being an essential consideration when deciding rule changes, injury prevention strategies, and athlete development models, there is little epidemiological data of U18 field hockey player injuries–something explicitly referred to in the 2015 International Olympic Committee’s Consensus Statement on Youth Athlete Development. The aim of this study was to quantify incidence and characteristics of injuries in elite youth field hockey players during a major international tournament. Standardized reporting forms detailing time, location on pitch, mechanism and anatomical location of injury were completed for new musculoskeletal conditions resulting in a time stoppage by the umpire and where a player was noticeably affected by an injury for up to 20 s regardless of time stoppage. Injury incidence was 1.35 and 2.20 injuries/match or 53 and 86 injuries per 1000 player match hours for boys (B) and girls (G) respectively; girls were over three times more likely to have a minor injury. Most injuries were contusions due to being hit by the ball or stick (B: 12, G: 27), with high numbers of injuries to the torso (B: 8) and head/face (G: 7). Injuries during the penalty corner (B: 3, G: 4) were to the lower limb and hand, and boys were less likely to wear facial protection (B: 65.9%, G: 86.4%). Results form an essential initial dataset of injuries in U18 field hockey players. Current reporting protocols under-report injuries and must be addressed by the international governing body. The high number of head/face injuries, particularly in females, requires further investigation.

Editorial: The Periodic Health Evaluation of Elite Athletes: A Consensus Statement From the International Olympic Committee

The Journal of Athletic Training is pleased to publish the International Olympic Committee's consensus statement on periodic health evaluation of elite athletes (along with the American Journal of Sports Medicine, the British Journal of Sports Medicine, the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, the International Sports Medicine Journal, the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports, the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, and the South African Journal of Sports Medicine). The publication of a sports medicine–related consensus statement prepared for a worldwide audience presents an unprecedented opportunity for a global perspective on a topic of interest among athletic trainers: the periodic health evaluation.This world view of the necessary elements of a periodic health evaluation for elite athletes was prepared by sports medicine experts from across the globe. Because this consensus statement regarding elite athletes was prepared from the physician's perspective, athletic trainers should keep a few salient points in mind.First, the term elite athlete is not defined. Therefore, the generalizability of these recommendations is somewhat fuzzy. Certainly, many Olympic and professional athletes would fit the description of elite athletes. Many high school and collegiate student-athletes, however, may not necessarily be defined as elite. As such, not all elements presented in this statement may be relevant or feasible in a high school or collegiate population (unless, of course, these athletes are otherwise defined as elite).Second, some recommended testing procedures might be more important for athletes from some nationalities than for others. An example is the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). People of certain nationalities have higher incidences of cardiac abnormalities than do others. Thus, 12-lead ECG testing may be more valuable in populations with a high incidence of such abnormalities than in those with a very low incidence. This is certainly an area of ongoing debate.Finally, these recommendations do not specifically identify the role of the athletic trainer in the periodic health evaluation. Certainly, the purpose of the consensus statement was not to identify who should and should not be involved in the periodic health evaluation. However, it is important to keep in mind that having the athletic trainer work in conjunction with the physician allows for enhanced quality of the periodic health evaluation. Nevertheless, we must also remember that not all countries have athletic trainers, so such services are not universally available.Yet these identified concerns do not detract from the quality of the work in this statement. I simply offer suggestions for contextualization of these excellent recommendations. It is important for athletic trainers to work with team physicians to identify the optimal periodic health evaluation for their patients. This consensus statement will undoubtedly be a valuable means to that end.The statement ends with a plea for research in the area of periodic health evaluation. This is an area in which athletic trainers have considerable expertise. I hope that in working together, national Olympic committees, athletic trainers, and other sports medicine professionals will be able to find ways to engage in high-quality research to further our knowledge in this area.