In contrast to our findings, they found a preventive

effe

In contrast to our findings, they found a preventive

effect on injury incidence and injury severity (time loss), particularly for non-contact injuries ( Junge et al 2011). It should be noted that their study aimed to evaluate the country-wide implementation of The11, so their design was less rigorous than the design chosen for the present study. The11 was implemented among male and female soccer players of different ages, with different injury patterns. The small sample sizes in their study meant that the Swiss authors were unable to draw conclusions about the effect AUY-922 mouse of The11 on specific injuries or differences between different soccer populations. It remains unknown whether there were similar effects of The11 among senior soccer players compared to the other groups of soccer players. Our study had some limitations, particularly in relation to our cost recording method. Healthcare use and productivity losses click here associated with injury were reported on the recovery form, which was completed after the player’s full recovery. This may have led to some

recall bias for injuries with a long and costly rehabilitation period. To minimise recall bias, the paramedical staff was advised to ask players regularly about their healthcare use and productivity loss, especially players with prolonged sports absenteeism. Another limitation was missing cost data because of incomplete recovery forms (missing therapeutic consultations) and some completely missing recovery forms. The few missing therapeutic consultations (6% of the injuries) may be regarded as missing at random, as no differences were found with the complete recovery data. However, the problem of incomplete recovery forms could have been avoided

if the injury registration system had also required the users to fill in the number of therapeutic consultations if more than one care provider had been consulted. We assume that imputation of these incomplete recovery data resulted in a more precise cost estimation of injuries in both groups, and did not affect the outcomes. As regards the completely missing Ketanserin recovery forms (13% of the injuries), missing injury costs were imputed using the average injury costs in each group. However, this strategy can severely distort the distribution of costs, causing the variation in these costs to be underestimated (Donders et al 2006). The outcomes of the sensitivity analysis should therefore be interpreted with some caution. The study was performed from a societal perspective, but we did not include direct non-healthcare costs in this economic evaluation (Hakkaart-van Roijen et al 2011). Direct nonhealthcare costs consist of traveling expenses, cost for patient time or family members’ time, and other costs. Incorporating these costs will increase the average costs per injury, but we do not expect (substantial) differences in these direct non-healthcare costs between both groups.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>