Explore the vast range of titles available.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the leading cause of mortality in athletes during sport. A variety of mostly hereditary, structural or electrical cardiac disorders are associated with SCD in young athletes, the majority of which can be identified or suggested by abnormalities on a resting 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). Whether used for diagnostic or screening purposes, physicians responsible for the cardiovascular care of athletes should be knowledgeable and competent in ECG interpretation in athletes. However, in most countries a shortage of physician expertise limits wider application of the ECG in the care of the athlete. A critical need exists for physician education in modern ECG interpretation that distinguishes normal physiological adaptations in athletes from distinctly abnormal findings suggestive of underlying pathology. Since the original 2010 European Society of Cardiology recommendations for ECG interpretation in athletes, ECG standards have evolved quickly, advanced by a growing body of scientific data and investigations that both examine proposed criteria sets and establish new evidence to guide refinements. On 26–27 February 2015, an international group of experts in sports cardiology, inherited cardiac disease, and sports medicine convened in Seattle, Washington (USA), to update contemporary standards for ECG interpretation in athletes. The objective of the meeting was to define and revise ECG interpretation standards based on new and emerging research and to develop a clear guide to the proper evaluation of ECG abnormalities in athletes. This statement represents an international consensus for ECG interpretation in athletes and provides expert opinion-based recommendations linking specific ECG abnormalities and the secondary evaluation for conditions associated with SCD.

Injury knowledge and beliefs influence uptake of prevention programmes, but the relationship between knowledge, beliefs and adherence remains unclear. To describe injury knowledge and beliefs among youth female soccer coaches and players, and to identify the relationship between these factors, different delivery strategies of the FIFA 11+ programme and adherence. A subcohort analysis from a cluster-randomised controlled trial of 31 female soccer teams (coaches n=29, players (ages 13-18) n=258). Preseason and postseason questionnaires were used to assess knowledge and beliefs. Teams recorded FIFA 11+ adherence during the season. At baseline, 62.8% (95% CI 48.4% to 77.3%) of coaches and 75.8% (95% CI 71.5% to 80.1%) of players considered 'inadequate warm-up' a risk factor for injury. There was no effect of delivery method (OR=1.1; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5) or adherence (OR=1.0; 95% CI 0.9 to 1.1) on this belief. At baseline, 13.8% (95% CI 1.3% to 26.4%) of coaches believed a warm-up could prevent muscle injuries, but none believed it could prevent knee and ankle injuries. For players, 9.7% (95% CI 6.1% to 13.3%), 4.7% (95% CI 2.1% to 7.3%) and 4.7% (95% CI 2.1% to 7.3%) believed a warm-up would prevent muscle, knee and ankle injuries, respectively. Years of playing experience were negatively associated with high adherence for coaches (OR=0.93; 0.88 to 0.99) and players (OR=0.92; 0.85 to 0.98). There were gaps in injury knowledge and beliefs, which differed for coaches and players. Beliefs did not significantly affect adherence to the FIFA 11+, suggesting additional motivational factors should be considered.

Background Screening to prevent sudden cardiac death remains a contentious topic in sport and exercise medicine. The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of a standardised criteria tool improves the accuracy of ECG interpretation by physicians screening athletes. Methods Design: Randomised control trial. Study population: General practitioners with an interest in sports medicine, sports physicians, sports medicine registrars and cardiologists from Australia and New Zealand were eligible to participate. Outcome measures: Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and false-positive rates of screening ECG interpretation of athletes. Intervention: A two-page standardised ECG criteria tool was provided to intervention participants. Control participants undertook ‘usual’ interpretation. Results 62 physicians, with a mean duration of practice of 16 years, were randomised to intervention and control. 10 baseline and 30 postrandomisation athlete ECGs were interpreted by the participants. Intervention participants were more likely to be correct: OR 1.72 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.27, p<0.001). Correct ECG interpretation was higher in the intervention group, 88.4% (95% CI 85.7% to 91.2%), than in the control group, 82.2% (95% CI 78.8% to 85.5%; p=0.005). Sensitivity was 95% in the intervention group and 92% in the control group (p=0.4), with specificity of 86% and 78%, respectively (p=0.006). There were 36% fewer false positives in the intervention group (p=0.006). Conclusions ECG interpretation in athletes can be improved by using a standardised ECG criteria tool. Use of the tool results in lower false-positive rates; this may have implications for screening recommendations. Trial Registration number: ACTRN12612000641897.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the leading cause of death in athletes during sport. Whether obtained for screening or diagnostic purposes, an ECG increases the ability to detect underlying cardiovascular conditions that may increase the risk for SCD. In most countries, there is a shortage of physician expertise in the interpretation of an athlete's ECG. A critical need exists for physician education in modern ECG interpretation that distinguishes normal physiological adaptations in athletes from abnormal findings suggestive of pathology. On 13–14 February 2012, an international group of experts in sports cardiology and sports medicine convened in Seattle, Washington, to define contemporary standards for ECG interpretation in athletes. The objective of the meeting was to develop a comprehensive training resource to help physicians distinguish normal ECG alterations in athletes from abnormal ECG findings that require additional evaluation for conditions associated with SCD.

The general consensus among sport and exercise genetics researchers is that genetic tests have no role to play in talent identification or the individualised prescription of training to maximise performance. Despite the lack of evidence, recent years have witnessed the rise of an emerging market of direct-to-consumer marketing (DTC) tests that claim to be able to identify children's athletic talents. Targeted consumers include mainly coaches and parents. There is concern among the scientific community that the current level of knowledge is being misrepresented for commercial purposes. There remains a lack of universally accepted guidelines and legislation for DTC testing in relation to all forms of genetic testing and not just for talent identification. There is concern over the lack of clarity of information over which specific genes or variants are being tested and the almost universal lack of appropriate genetic counselling for the interpretation of the genetic data to consumers. Furthermore independent studies have identified issues relating to quality control by DTC laboratories with different results being reported from samples from the same individual. Consequently, in the current state of knowledge, no child or young athlete should be exposed to DTC genetic testing to define or alter training or for talent identification aimed at selecting gifted children or adolescents. Large scale collaborative projects, may help to develop a stronger scientific foundation on these issues in the future.

Sport specialization is a training method now commonly used by young athletes who hope to achieve elite-level success. This may be defined as (1) choosing a main sport, (2) quitting all other sports to focus on 1 sport, and (3) year-round training (greater than 8 months per year). A number of sports medicine organizations have published recommendations based on the limited evidence available on this topic. The objective of this article was to perform a narrative review of the currently available evidence and sports medicine organizational recommendations regarding sport specialization and its effects on health to guide athletic trainers and sports medicine providers. To accomplish this goal, we conducted a narrative review of articles and position statements on sport specialization published from 1990 through 2018. Injury, overuse injury, serious overuse injury, and lower extremity injury were likely associated with higher degrees of sport specialization in various populations. Sports medicine organizations in general recommended against sport specialization in young athletes and instead promoted multisport participation for physical and psychological benefits. Few long-term data suggest that sport specialization has negative health-related quality-of-life consequences. Higher degrees of sport specialization likely pose risks of overuse injury; however, the age of specialization at which this risk occurs is not known. Because different populations and sports activities may put children at risk for certain injuries, future researchers should monitor large populations with sport-specific prospective active surveillance.

The health, fitness and other advantages of youth sports participation are well recognised. However, there are considerable challenges for all stakeholders involved—especially youth athletes—in trying to maintain inclusive, sustainable and enjoyable participation and success for all levels of individual athletic achievement. In an effort to advance a more unified, evidence-informed approach to youth athlete development, the IOC critically evaluated the current state of science and practice of youth athlete development and presented recommendations for developing healthy, resilient and capable youth athletes, while providing opportunities for all levels of sport participation and success. The IOC further challenges all youth and other sport governing bodies to embrace and implement these recommended guiding principles.

Pain is a common problem among elite athletes and is frequently associated with sport injury. Both pain and injury interfere with the performance of elite athletes. There are currently no evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines for the management of pain in elite athletes. Typically, pain management consists of the provision of analgesics, rest and physical therapy. More appropriately, a treatment strategy should address all contributors to pain including underlying pathophysiology, biomechanical abnormalities and psychosocial issues, and should employ therapies providing optimal benefit and minimal harm. To advance the development of a more standardised, evidence-informed approach to pain management in elite athletes, an IOC Consensus Group critically evaluated the current state of the science and practice of pain management in sport and prepared recommendations for a more unified approach to this important topic.

Apart from objectivity and validity, reliability is considered a precondition for testing within scientific works, as unreliable testing protocols limit conclusions, especially for practical application. Classification guidelines commonly refer to relative reliability, focusing on Pearson correlation coefficients ( r p ) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). On those, the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable change (MDC) are often calculated in addition to the variability coefficient (CV). These, however, do not account for systematic or random errors (e.g., standardization problems). To illustrate, we applied common reliability statistics in sports science on simulated data which extended the sample size of two original counter-movement-jump sessions from (youth) elite basketball players. These show that excellent r p and ICC (≥ 0.9) without a systematic bias were accompanied by a mean absolute percentage error of over 20%. Furthermore, we showed that the ICC does not account for systematic errors and has only limited value for accuracy, which can cause misleading conclusions of data. While a simple re-organization of data caused an improvement in relative reliability and reduced limits of agreement meaningfully, systematic errors occurred. This example underlines the lack of validity and objectivity of commonly used ICC-based reliability statistics (SEM, MDC) to quantify the primary and secondary variance sources. After revealing several caveats in the literature (e.g., neglecting of the systematic and random error or not distinguishing between protocol and device reliability), we suggest a methodological approach to provide reliable data collections as a precondition for valid conclusions by, e.g., recommending pre-set acceptable measurement errors.

Flexibility refers to the intrinsic properties of body tissues that determine maximal joint range of motion without causing injury. For many years, flexibility has been classified by the American College of Sports Medicine as a major component of physical fitness. The notion flexibility is important for fitness has also led to the idea static stretching should be prescribed to improve flexibility. The current paper proposes flexibility be retired as a major component of physical fitness, and consequently, stretching be de-emphasized as a standard component of exercise prescriptions for most populations. First, I show flexibility has little predictive or concurrent validity with health and performance outcomes (e.g., mortality, falls, occupational performance) in apparently healthy individuals, particularly when viewed in light of the other major components of fitness (i.e., body composition, cardiovascular endurance, muscle endurance, muscle strength). Second, I explain that if flexibility requires improvement, this does not necessitate a prescription of stretching in most populations. Flexibility can be maintained or improved by exercise modalities that cause more robust health benefits than stretching (e.g., resistance training). Retirement of flexibility as a major component of physical fitness will simplify fitness batteries; save time and resources dedicated to flexibility instruction, measurement, and evaluation; and prevent erroneous conclusions about fitness status when interpreting flexibility scores. De-emphasis of stretching in exercise prescriptions will ensure stretching does not negatively impact other exercise and does not take away from time that could be allocated to training activities that have more robust health and performance benefits.