Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Module 1: Research in Sport, Evidence-Based Sports Medicine was first used…

- - - - whats desirable for publishers is big exciting news
        
        don't want to publish something that didn't work
    - - don't necessarily want to share because of competition
      - giving competitors an advantage and you don't want to share that publicly
    - - sporting environments can be unpredictable
        
        weather
        
        injuries
        
        external variables
    - - small sample sizes
      - busy schedules
        
        jobs and lots of training time
      - Perceived benefits
        
        what are they getting out of it?
    - - for profit leading to bias in research
      - use research to boost claims
  - - - players found them restrictive and they caused wounds
      - difficult to service
      - They smelt bad
      - expensive to buy braces
  - - - it's more tendonopathy and degenerative condition than inflammation
- - - - novel findings
      - press releases to 'brag' which loses the nuances of the papers
      - media practice
      - scientific bandwagon
        
        hop on that research to chase the money and novel findings
    - - Premature implementation of technologies and interventions
        
        good preliminary findings which rush interventions
      - Harmful diversion of research resources
        
        Everyone is looking for funding so if we get too excited without back up they get diverted from slowing moving research
      - Inaccurate perceptions about disease risk
        
        dramatization of disease risk
        
        doing a lot of prevention for something that isn't required
      - loss of public trust
        
        overblowing results since they often fall flat
      - Misinformed debates about benefits and harms of a particular area of science
    - - soccer genomics case study
        
        dna soccer test marketed towards children
        
        extract some DNA and they will sequence it and analyze it to tell if you have the qualities of a good soccer player, how to tailor your training or what position you'd be good in
        
        took this emerging field of dna sequencing to learn about individuals but it was a stretch
    - - help stop the spread by thinking carefully about the wider scope of science before sharing
- - - - Comparison
        
        won't always be one but better with one
        
        placebo or meds
    - - Outcome
        
        not the findings but the outcome variable
        
        Pain, ROM, function
    - - Intervention
        
        what program/product/medication did we use?
    - - Time
        
        How long did we study these ppl
    - - Population
        
        group of ppl we are looking at
  - - - Were subjects randomly assigned?
      - Was there a control group?
      - Was the study blinded?
      - were subjects randomy chosen?
    - - How long were subjects followed?
      - Was there a follow-up?
      - How long was the intervention?
    - - how big is the sample?
        
        What was the attrition rate
        
        how many participants they lost throughout the course of the study
        
        Did subjects know the expected/intended outcomes
        
        Were subjects matched
        
        What was the inclusion/exclusion criteria?
        
        How were they selected
        
        who were the subjects
    - - What type of study was it?
      - What is the strength of that type of study?
    - - Were they significant?
        
        are findings novel? or do they support other evidence
        
        did findings reach significant? At what P value?
      - How strong were findings?
        
        How large were CI's
        
        How powerful were changes?
      - What were the results?
        
        did the findings support the hypothesis/intervention
  - - - intervention came before the result
    - - did intervention, result came, stopped intervention, it got bad again
    - - why we control most aspects of study to show the result wasn't covered by any extraneous variable
        
        ensure nothing else caused it (ex// yoga and ROM)
- - - - there is a difference b/w headline, press release + research
        
        press release waters down research to laments terms
        
        causes a game of telephone in research + media
      - articles often very dense and hard to understand
  - - - marketed Improve physical power and balance
      - When tried with the band it was a lot better but rlly it was just because they were prepared for the pressure
    - - keep you off balance to make walking cause more energy expenditure
  - - - less definitive and not a cure all situation
      - did nothing for 2/3
    - - It wasn't that 99% had CTE
- - - - probiotics
      - homeopathic
      - Traditional Chinese Medicine
    - - 50% of US households consume supplements
  - - - potency in any given sample ranged from 9% to 140% to what was listed
      - not reliable on what ur getting
  - - - claims made about ability to extend life expectancy and make you look younger
    - - wristbands are a scam, no credible source
    - - clinically shown to improve attentiveness by 20%
        
        study compared mini wheats to those who had no breakfast
    - - article has a correction in it saying that the affiliation was a program manager which makes recovery water (bias)
- - - - Embase
      - Cochrane
      - Pubmed: Medline
      - SportDiscus
  - - - utilize "and", "or", and "not" to customize search
      - include and exclude certain articles
  - - - answer largely dependent on topic
      - newer treatments will have shorter history of literature but newer isn't a;ways better
      - best to do meta-analyses
  - - - newer phenomenon
      - Researchers pay to have research published in some journals
      - extra step of scrutiny required if open source
    - - journals are assigned a #, the higher it is the higher quality research
        
        very good: >70
        
        con hover b/w 20-50
        
        in sport it is ok for it to be lower since it is difficult to do a double blind control research
        
        score is field specific
  - - - making it look like it affects your likelihood of mortality
        
        looking closer to the authors
        
        the organization only promotes a vegan agenda and is biased since it advocates for no dairy use
    - - sponsored by coca cola, pepsi and american bev corporation
        
        giving funds to publish to say obesity is linked more with inactivity than diet so that they benefit
        
        global energy balance network
        
        only about PA but the obesity crisis is actually driven by diet
- - - - how you ask questions
        
        be neutral
    - - bias in how you respond
        
        could answer based on what is socially acceptable
    - - bias in the tools you are using
    - - who you recommend for the study
        
        physicians may only refer sickest or healthiest patients
    - - how we choose participants
        
        ex// this class is a youth, kin, lower mainland bias
    - - Finding it only acceptable to publish only novel findings not novel
  - - - population
      - Costs
      - Time commitments
      - staff
      - equiptment