Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy logoLink to International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
. 2023 Feb 1;18(1):253–261. doi: 10.26603/001c.57680

Personalized Injury Reduction Strategies in Sports Medicine: Lessons Learned from Advances in Breast Cancer Treatment: A Clinical Commentary

Garrett Bullock 1,2,3,✉, Gary Collins 4,5, Rober Adams 6, Charles Thigpen 7, Ellen Shanley 7
PMCID: PMC9897041  PMID: 36793581

Abstract

Background

Injury rates across sport have risen over the past twenty years, despite increased efforts in training and injury prevention. The rise in injury rates suggest that current approaches to estimating injury risk and risk management are not effective. One factor limiting progress is the inconsistency in screening, risk assessment, and risk management strategies to guide injury mitigation approaches.

Clinical Question

How can sports physical therapists identify and apply lessons learned from other healthcare fields to improve athlete injury risk and risk management strategies?

Key Results

Breast cancer mortality has consistently decreased over the last 30 years, largely attributed to advances in personalizing the prevention and treatment strategies which include modifiable and non-modifiable factors when assessing risk, the transition to personalized medicine, and the systematic approach used to investigate individual risk factors. Three critical phases have facilitated the identification and importance of individual risk factors and developing targeted, personalized strategies for breast cancer risk including: 1) Establishing the potential relationship between factors and outcomes; 2) Prospectively investigate the strength and direction of the relationship; 3) Investigating if intervening on identified factors alters prognosis.

Clinical Application

Applying lessons learned from other healthcare fields could improve shared decision making between the clinician and athlete concerning risk assessment and management. Examples include calculating only non-modifiable risk, creating individualized screening schedules based on risk assessment, or calculating the influence of each intervention on the athlete’s injury risk. A systematic approach to identify and intervene on risk is needed to improve athlete outcomes.

Keywords: Risk, Risk Management, Prediction, Confounding

Introduction

The World Health Organization Physical Activity Action Plan identifies that sport is an underutilized, yet important, physical activity contributor.1 However, sport participation has inherent injury risk,2,3 with 30% of all emergency department visits due to sport injury.4 Injury rates continue to rise, with a 35% increase in female soccer anterior cruciate ligament tears over 25 years.3 The rise in injury rates suggest that current approaches to estimating injury risk and risk management are not effective.5 One factor limiting progress is the inconsistency in screening, risk assessment, and risk management strategies to guide injury mitigation approaches. For example, individual potential risk factors are often times preemptively deemed important in all sport sub populations, when in reality, additional larger and repeated studies are needed to understand the generalizability of a specific risk factor.5 This spuriously concludes a ‘catch all’ risk factor at all competition levels, when this specific risk factor may only be influential in a sub-population, or worse, demonstrate no actual risk due to influence from another confounding variable, providing biased injury risk results.5,6

In order to improve our understanding of injury risk, and move towards effective injury mitigation in sport physical therapists and clinical researchers must apply lessons from other healthcare professions. One medical disease that has steadily demonstrated improved patient outcomes is breast cancer.7–9 The inclusion of both modifiable and non-modifiable factors when assessing risk,10,11 the transition to personalized medicine,10,12,13 and the systematic approach used to investigate individual risk factors14 have created a system that can be replicated in other fields of medicine. Therefore, the purpose of this commentary is to describe breast cancer risk research and risk management strategies and how these strategies can be implemented in sport, using baseball as a practical example, to improve athlete outcomes.

Current State of Baseball Injury Burden and Research

One sport that is highly researched for injury risk is baseball.15–18 A 2019 scoping review reported that 678 studies focused on baseball research.19 Baseball is played throughout the world, with 160 countries associated with the World Baseball and Softball Federation.20 Over 16 million people participate in baseball within the United States alone, with professional leagues throughout Australasia, Latin America, and North America.20,21 Baseball is considered a relatively safe sport but injury rates have more than doubled over the last two decades.15,17,22,23 Injury incidence ranges from 0.8 to 4.0 injuries per 1,000 athlete exposures.24–31 with the greatest incidence attributed to the shoulder,15,23 elbow,17,23,32 and trunk,23 with throwing overuse injuries being the most common.25,33 The number of injuries is greater compared to other throwing sports.28,29,31 Baseball players have a greater risk of injury (1.7 times greater odds) compared to softball players, and pitchers with a 4.57 greater odds compared to position players.29 Injury burden is high, with time loss, replacement, and health care costs continuing to rise at all baseball levels.34 The escalation in frequency,2,3,7,21,23,33–35 severity,28,29,36 and cost34 of injuries in baseball suggests that the approaches to understanding and preventing baseball injuries are not effective.

The available empirical evidence has identified only a fraction of the complex interactions of risk factors in baseball.19,37 A primary limitation of current baseball research is that there are no prospective studies examining multiple intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors to inform injury prevention programs. Previous studies do not control for non-modifiable confounders that can act as effect modifiers changing the impact of the study variables on the ultimate outcome .15,35,38,39 Further, the focus of previous research has often been on one specific physical factor in isolation,15–18 without attempting to control for or understand its relation to other modifiable and non-modifiable confounders. Therefore, the complex interaction of multiple risk factors and injury mechanisms are unclear and inhibit clinical examination, prevention strategies, and clinical decision making.

Improvement in Breast Cancer Outcomes, Personalized Risk Assessment, and Management

Breast cancer mortality has consistently decreased over the last 30 years,7,8 largely attributed to advances in personalizing the prevention and treatment strategies which include modifiable and non-modifiable factors when assessing risk,10,11,40 the transition to personalized medicine,10,12,13 and the systematic approach used to investigate individual risk factors (Figure 1).14 These key steps have seen decreased breast cancer mortality rates by 6.9% from 2002 to 2006 alone, with an average of a 2% decrease per year in Europe.41 Within the United States, breast cancer mortality has decreased by 38% from 1990-2003.9 These reductions in mortality trends have been observed across all age groups,9,41 and particularly in younger women.9

Figure 1. Three Steps to Assess and Intervene on Outcome Risk Using a Disease and a Musculoskeletal Example.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Besides advances in surgical42 and chemotherapy treatments,43 the improvements in breast cancer survival have been attributed to innovations in breast cancer screening, risk assessment, and risk management.10,12,13 Risk assessment is defined as a, “systematic approach to characterizing adverse exposures.”44,45 While risk management is defined as selecting strategies to reduce risk of the outcome.44 In order to improve attributable risk identification and management, the United States Preventive Services Task Force in 2009 changed their breast cancer mammography screening guidelines, stating, “screening should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms (pg. 294).”46 These alterations were implemented due to specific changes in understanding of breast cancer risk, particularly in the advent of personalized medicine.

Personalized medicine is defined as when medical treatment is customized for an individual patient.47 Within breast cancer, personalized medicine has been implemented due to the understanding and inclusion of both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors when assessing outcome risk. For example, the advent of genetic research, specifically investigations of the BRCA1 & BRCA2 genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPS),12,13 and their relationships to breast cancer have created a better understanding of non-modifiable risk.10,11 The inclusion of non-modifiable risk factors helps guide shared decision making between the clinician and patient on screening strategies and potential primary and secondary risk management approaches for modifiable factors.10 For example, if the 10-year breast cancer risk is higher for a specific 40-year-old, compared to the average 50-year-old, it may be advantageous to begin mammogram breast cancer screening 10 years prior to the nationally recommended screening age.10 The understanding of non-modifiable risk may also inform how intervening on modifiable risk factors will change breast cancer risk. Modifiable breast cancer risk factors include changes in weight after the individual reaches 18 years old to present age, physical activity habits, nutrition, and alcohol consumption.11,48 A clinician can calculate if intervening on these modifiable risk factors (through educational, lifestyle, and medical interventions), changes a particular patient’s breast cancer risk. This information helps apprise the clinician on the cost benefit of different screening measures (such as MRI versus traditional mammogram), the potential intensity and adherence needed to focus on modifiable risk factor interventions, and potential educational counselling on false positive tests (in case increased screening is required) to create a more individualized tailored medical approach.10,48

Application in Sport, Using Baseball as the Example

So far, we have briefly highlighted screening, risk assessment, and management strategies in breast cancer. The question of how this applies to sport, which does not deal with life and death, but at worst, career ending injuries needs to be answered? Currently, baseball injury risk and risk management does not account for non-modifiable risk factors, and assumes equal risk between all populations and subgroups. Within breast cancer, a systematic approach has been proposed to investigate potential risk factors and incorporate these risk factors into one comprehensive risk assessment.14 This systematic approach can be used as a template for improving baseball outcomes and more generally in sport.

Figure 2. Three Phases to Defining a Risk Factor.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Three critical phases have facilitated the identification and importance of individual risk factors and developing targeted, personalized strategies for breast cancer risk.14 First, level one studies establish the potential relationship(s) between factors and outcomes of interest, which generates future, testable hypotheses. These studies identify statistical relationships between a potential risk factor and the outcome, without controlling for confounders. Baseball research remains at this level. Level two studies prospectively investigate the strength and direction of the relationship between the risk factor and outcome, while controlling for confounding. These studies can also investigate potential sub group relationship differences between the risk factor and outcome. Within baseball, this is the next logical step in risk factor research and can be easily implemented through replicating past study designs and cohorts, while controlling for confounders. Level three studies can entail prediction model development and validation studies seeking to understand if intervening on a factor alters prognosis.14 Within baseball, randomized control trials on modifiable risk factors and the development and validation of prediction models is warranted to better calculate injury risk and improve risk management.

To use a hypothetical example for context, a clinician scientist wants to understand if shoulder range of motion is a risk factor for arm injuries in baseball pitchers. To initially investigate this issue, this clinician scientist performed a level one retrospective cohort study, in which shoulder range of motion was compared between injured and non-injured baseball pitchers. The clinician scientist could perform an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or a logistic regression to ascertain if there are differences in shoulder range of motion between injured and non-injured baseball players. In this hypothetical example, a 20º difference in total shoulder rotation (external plus internal shoulder rotation) was observed between injured and non-injured pitchers, which is beyond the standard error of measure and minimum clinically importance difference.49 From these findings, the clinician scientist surmises that shoulder range of motion might be an injury risk factor in baseball pitchers. However, the clinician scientist knows there are specific biases that need to be controlled for in order to help understand if this is truly a risk factor

Following the level one study results, the researcher decided to perform a level two prospective study on shoulder range of motion. Shoulder range of motion was measured in spring training, along with potential confounders, including hand dominance, body mass index,50 injury history,51 shoulder strength,52 lower extremity range of motion,53 balance,32,35 and pitch velocity.54 Each pitcher was followed for the entire season with injuries and total athlete exposures (in the form of pitching appearances and number of pitches) collected. The clinician scientist then performs a Cox survival analysis or a relative risk regression to compare injured versus non-injured pitchers. The clinician scientist also performs sub group analyses for left and right handers, as these sub populations have demonstrated different clinical phenotypes, including demonstrating different height,55 mass,50 humeral torsion,56,57 and pitch velocity.58 The clinician scientist observed that there is still a difference in total shoulder rotation between injured and non-injured pitchers, which after controlling for all confounders, is 12º. Further when analyzing left and right handers separately, left handers demonstrated a 9º difference and right handers demonstrated a 15º difference. These differences between left and right handers were beyond the standard error of measure and thus suggests there may be clinical differences in shoulder rotation injury risk between hand dominance. The clinician scientist hypothesizes that shoulder range of motion can be used to help ascertain injury risk and should be intervened upon. However, before interventions can be recommended, these risk factor needs to be assessed for efficacy in relation to modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors, and if there is a causal relationship between shoulder range of motion and injury. Examples of a non-modifiable risk factors include age, humeral torsion,56,57 and previous arm surgical history.

To answer these level three questions, the clinician scientist performs a multiyear prospective study, including both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors, to develop a prediction model. The developed prediction model demonstrated good prediction performance following best practice guidelines and improved with the inclusion of shoulder range of motion as a predictor.59 The clinician scientist then performs a clustered randomized control trial performing manual therapy to the shoulder in the treatment arm and standard care (not including manual therapy) performed in the control arm for an entire season. The research determines that there is a 30% reduction in arm injuries in the treatment arm compared to the control arm. When assessing the intervention effectiveness in left and right handers, it is observed that left handers demonstrated a 20% reduction in injury rates and right handers a 40% reduction in injury rates. The clinician scientist concludes that intervening on this modifiable risk factor, using the prediction model to identify pitchers at risk for injury, can help decrease arm injury risk in pitchers. Further, modifying shoulder range of motion has different injury risk management effectiveness (20% difference) between left and right handers.

How Current Injury Risk and Management is Employed in Sport and is Suboptimal

The proposed approach is not reflected in the current state and progression and sport injury risk screening, assessment and intervention strategies. To use a baseball clinical example, current best evidence-based practice suggests that baseball pitchers are at a higher risk for injury when a pitcher’s dominant (throwing) shoulder total range of motion is 10º less than the non-dominant (non-throwing) shoulder.17,60 Current clinical decisions would recommend that this at-risk pitcher would receive specific shoulder range of motion interventions (such as stretching and manual therapy), until the pitcher’s dominant shoulder total range of motion was below 10º different than their non-dominant shoulder.61 The current best practice recommendation implies that this will effectively mitigate this particular pitcher’s injury risk through this specific intervention. A current limitation with this approach includes assuming that all populations and subgroups demonstrate a similar risk relationship between the proposed risk factor and injury. Further, it is ambiguous if this particular injury risk would be managed through this intervention, due to lack of specific understanding as to how this particular risk factor relates to other modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors and if there is a causal relationship between shoulder range of motion deficits and arm injuries in baseball pitchers.

The sports medicine and research community could gain insight from the lessons learned and implemented in breast cancer. These experiences could help improve a particular pitcher’s current injury risk assessment and allow for personalized interventions. Improved injury risk assessment would be ascertained by accounting for non-modifiable risk factors such as the pitcher’s injury history,51 previous pitching exposure,62 pitching mechanics,37 and osseous adaptation.63 Understanding how these non-modifiable risk factors interplay with the modifiable shoulder range of motion risk factor,17,60 along with other modifiable risk factors such as shoulder strength52 and balance,32,35 could be enhanced though controlling for confounders in prospective injury risk studies from previous level one studies. Development of an injury prediction model would be a logical progression within the tiered level three study paradigm. This information could then be used in shared decision making between the clinician and athlete concerning risk management. Specifically, calculating current injury risk could determine if individualized screening schedules throughout the season are warranted, beyond the traditional preseason screening. One could also calculate only non-modifiable injury risk, which would illuminate how intervening on all modifiable risk factors would potentially impact risk mitigation strategies. Another option would be to calculate the influence of each intervention on the athlete’s injury risk, providing a better plan for creating a personalized approach to their risk management.

These are only a few of the potential next steps that could improve sport injury research and inform clinical practice across body regions, specific injuries, and athlete groups. It should be noted that current practice suggests taking detailed patient histories should be followed by performing a thorough and comprehensive physical exam. However, each of these pieces are not amalgamated into one comprehensive injury risk assessment nor risk management strategies (such as understanding casual factors or a comprehensive prediction model), and considered in isolation from a risk assessment and management perspective. Learning and implementing lessons from medical research and services for diseases such as breast cancer, would only improve patient care in the sports medicine setting.

Conclusion

Current research, athlete screening, risk assessment, and risk management are ineffective in sport, demonstrated by the continued rise in injury rates and severity over the last twenty years.15,17,22,23 As demonstrated through breast cancer screening strategies,10,11,48 an improved understanding of risk is not ascertained without the inclusion of both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Until the sport community applies the lessons learned from other health care professions, sport injury outcomes will be suboptimal, continuing to provide a disservice to athletes.

References

  1. World Health Organization . Global action plan on physical activity 2018-2030: more active people for a healthier world. World Health Organization; [Google Scholar]
  2. Survey of sport participation and sport injury in Calgary and area high schools. Emery Carolyn A, Meeuwisse Willem H, McAllister Jenelle R. Jan;2006 Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 16(1):20–26. doi: 10.1097/01.jsm.0000184638.72075.b7. doi: 10.1097/01.jsm.0000184638.72075.b7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Collegiate ACL injury rates across 15 sports: national collegiate athletic association injury surveillance system data update (2004-2005 through 2012-2013) Agel Julie, Rockwood Todd, Klossner David. Nov;2016 Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 26(6):518–523. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000290. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Assessing the representativeness of Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Programme (CHIRPP) sport and recreational injury data in Calgary, Canada. Kang Jian, Hagel Brent, Emery Carolyn A., Senger Trudi, Meeuwisse Willem. Mar;2013 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion. 20(1):19–26. doi: 10.1080/17457300.2012.656315. doi: 10.1080/17457300.2012.656315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bahr Roald. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 13. Vol. 50. BMJ; Why screening tests to predict injury do not work—and probably never will…: a critical review; pp. 776–780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Assessing causation in sport injury: a multifactorial model. Meeuwisse Willem H. Jul;1994 Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 4(3):166–170. doi: 10.1097/00042752-199407000-00004. doi: 10.1097/00042752-199407000-00004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cancer mortality in Europe, 2000–2004, and an overview of trends since 1975. La Vecchia C., Bosetti C., Lucchini F., Bertuccio P., Negri E., Boyle P., Levi F. Jun;2010 Annals of Oncology. 21(6):1323–1360. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp530. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Monitoring the decrease in breast cancer mortality in Europe. Levi Fabio, Bosetti Cristina, Lucchini Franca, Negri Eva, La Vecchia Carlo. Dec;2005 European Journal of Cancer Prevention. 14(6):497–502. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200512000-00002. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200512000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Breast cancer mortality trends in the United States according to estrogen receptor status and age at diagnosis. Jatoi Ismail, Chen Bingshu E., Anderson William F., Rosenberg Philip S. May 1;2007 Journal of Clinical Oncology. 25(13):1683–1690. doi: 10.1200/jco.2006.09.2106. doi: 10.1200/jco.2006.09.2106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Breast cancer risk from modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors among white women in the United States. Maas Paige, Barrdahl Myrto, Joshi Amit D., Auer Paul L., Gaudet Mia M., Milne Roger L., Schumacher Fredrick R., Anderson William F., Check David, Chattopadhyay Subham, Baglietto Laura, Berg Christine D., Chanock Stephen J., Cox David G., Figueroa Jonine D., Gail Mitchell H., Graubard Barry I., Haiman Christopher A., Hankinson Susan E., Hoover Robert N., Isaacs Claudine, Kolonel Laurence N., Le Marchand Loic, Lee I-Min, Lindström Sara, Overvad Kim, Romieu Isabelle, Sanchez Maria-Jose, Southey Melissa C., Stram Daniel O., Tumino Rosario, VanderWeele Tyler J., Willett Walter C., Zhang Shumin, Buring Julie E., Canzian Federico, Gapstur Susan M., Henderson Brian E., Hunter David J., Giles Graham G, Prentice Ross L., Ziegler Regina G., Kraft Peter, Garcia-Closas Montse, Chatterjee Nilanjan. Oct 1;2016 JAMA Oncology. 2(10):1295–1302. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1025. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Proportion of invasive breast cancer attributable to risk factors modifiable after menopause. Sprague B. L., Trentham-Dietz A., Egan K. M., Titus-Ernstoff L., Hampton J. M., Newcomb P. A. Jun 30;2008 American Journal of Epidemiology. 168(4):404–411. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn143. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Advances in breast cancer: pathways to personalized medicine. Olopade Olufunmilayo I., Grushko Tatyana A., Nanda Rita, Huo Dezheng. Dec 15;2008 Clinical Cancer Research. 14(24):7988–7999. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-1211. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-1211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Mavaddat Nasim, Michailidou Kyriaki, Dennis Joe, Lush Michael, Fachal Laura, Lee Andrew, Tyrer Jonathan P., Chen Ting-Huei, Wang Qin, Bolla Manjeet K., Yang Xin, Adank Muriel A., Ahearn Thomas, Aittomäki Kristiina, Allen Jamie, Andrulis Irene L., Anton-Culver Hoda, Antonenkova Natalia N., Arndt Volker, Aronson Kristan J., Auer Paul L., Auvinen Päivi, Barrdahl Myrto, Beane Freeman Laura E., Beckmann Matthias W., Behrens Sabine, Benitez Javier, Bermisheva Marina, Bernstein Leslie, Blomqvist Carl, Bogdanova Natalia V., Bojesen Stig E., Bonanni Bernardo, Børresen-Dale Anne-Lise, Brauch Hiltrud, Bremer Michael, Brenner Hermann, Brentnall Adam, Brock Ian W., Brooks-Wilson Angela, Brucker Sara Y., Brüning Thomas, Burwinkel Barbara, Campa Daniele, Carter Brian D., Castelao Jose E., Chanock Stephen J., Chlebowski Rowan, Christiansen Hans, Clarke Christine L., Collée J. Margriet, Cordina-Duverger Emilie, Cornelissen Sten, Couch Fergus J., Cox Angela, Cross Simon S., Czene Kamila, Daly Mary B., Devilee Peter, Dörk Thilo, dos-Santos-Silva Isabel, Dumont Martine, Durcan Lorraine, Dwek Miriam, Eccles Diana M., Ekici Arif B., Eliassen A. Heather, Ellberg Carolina, Engel Christoph, Eriksson Mikael, Evans D. Gareth, Fasching Peter A., Figueroa Jonine, Fletcher Olivia, Flyger Henrik, Försti Asta, Fritschi Lin, Gabrielson Marike, Gago-Dominguez Manuela, Gapstur Susan M., García-Sáenz José A., Gaudet Mia M., Georgoulias Vassilios, Giles Graham G., Gilyazova Irina R., Glendon Gord, Goldberg Mark S., Goldgar David E., González-Neira Anna, Grenaker Alnæs Grethe I., Grip Mervi, Gronwald Jacek, Grundy Anne, Guénel Pascal, Haeberle Lothar, Hahnen Eric, Haiman Christopher A., Håkansson Niclas, Hamann Ute, Hankinson Susan E., Harkness Elaine F., Hart Steven N., He Wei, Hein Alexander, Heyworth Jane, Hillemanns Peter, Hollestelle Antoinette, Hooning Maartje J., Hoover Robert N., Hopper John L., Howell Anthony, Huang Guanmengqian, Humphreys Keith, Hunter David J., Jakimovska Milena, Jakubowska Anna, Janni Wolfgang, John Esther M., Johnson Nichola, Jones Michael E., Jukkola-Vuorinen Arja, Jung Audrey, Kaaks Rudolf, Kaczmarek Katarzyna, Kataja Vesa, Keeman Renske, Kerin Michael J., Khusnutdinova Elza, Kiiski Johanna I., Knight Julia A., Ko Yon-Dschun, Kosma Veli-Matti, Koutros Stella, Kristensen Vessela N., Krüger Ute, Kühl Tabea, Lambrechts Diether, Le Marchand Loic, Lee Eunjung, Lejbkowicz Flavio, Lilyquist Jenna, Lindblom Annika, Lindström Sara, Lissowska Jolanta, Lo Wing-Yee, Loibl Sibylle, Long Jirong, Lubiński Jan, Lux Michael P., MacInnis Robert J., Maishman Tom, Makalic Enes, Maleva Kostovska Ivana, Mannermaa Arto, Manoukian Siranoush, Margolin Sara, Martens John W.M., Martinez Maria Elena, Mavroudis Dimitrios, McLean Catriona, Meindl Alfons, Menon Usha, Middha Pooja, Miller Nicola, Moreno Fernando, Mulligan Anna Marie, Mulot Claire, Muñoz-Garzon Victor M., Neuhausen Susan L., Nevanlinna Heli, Neven Patrick, Newman William G., Nielsen Sune F., Nordestgaard Børge G., Norman Aaron, Offit Kenneth, Olson Janet E., Olsson Håkan, Orr Nick, Pankratz V. Shane, Park-Simon Tjoung-Won, Perez Jose I.A., Pérez-Barrios Clara, Peterlongo Paolo, Peto Julian, Pinchev Mila, Plaseska-Karanfilska Dijana, Polley Eric C., Prentice Ross, Presneau Nadege, Prokofyeva Darya, Purrington Kristen, Pylkäs Katri, Rack Brigitte, Radice Paolo, Rau-Murthy Rohini, Rennert Gad, Rennert Hedy S., Rhenius Valerie, Robson Mark, Romero Atocha, Ruddy Kathryn J., Ruebner Matthias, Saloustros Emmanouil, Sandler Dale P., Sawyer Elinor J., Schmidt Daniel F., Schmutzler Rita K., Schneeweiss Andreas, Schoemaker Minouk J., Schumacher Fredrick, Schürmann Peter, Schwentner Lukas, Scott Christopher, Scott Rodney J., Seynaeve Caroline, Shah Mitul, Sherman Mark E., Shrubsole Martha J., Shu Xiao-Ou, Slager Susan, Smeets Ann, Sohn Christof, Soucy Penny, Southey Melissa C., Spinelli John J., Stegmaier Christa, Stone Jennifer, Swerdlow Anthony J., Tamimi Rulla M., Tapper William J., Taylor Jack A., Terry Mary Beth, Thöne Kathrin, Tollenaar Rob A.E.M., Tomlinson Ian, Truong Thérèse, Tzardi Maria, Ulmer Hans-Ulrich, Untch Michael, Vachon Celine M., van Veen Elke M., Vijai Joseph, Weinberg Clarice R., Wendt Camilla, Whittemore Alice S., Wildiers Hans, Willett Walter, Winqvist Robert, Wolk Alicja, Yang Xiaohong R., Yannoukakos Drakoulis, Zhang Yan, Zheng Wei, Ziogas Argyrios, Dunning Alison M., Thompson Deborah J., Chenevix-Trench Georgia, Chang-Claude Jenny, Schmidt Marjanka K., Hall Per, Milne Roger L., Pharoah Paul D.P., Antoniou Antonis C., Chatterjee Nilanjan, Kraft Peter, García-Closas Montserrat, Simard Jacques, Easton Douglas F. Jan;2019 The American Journal of Human Genetics. 104(1):21–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Altman D.G., Lyman G.H. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998:379–393. doi: 10.1023/a:1006193704132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Correlation of glenohumeral internal rotation deficit and total rotational motion to shoulder injuries in professional baseball pitchers. Wilk Kevin E., Macrina Leonard C., Fleisig Glenn S., Porterfield Ronald, Simpson Charles D. II, Harker Paul, Paparesta Nick, Andrews James R. 2011The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 39(2):329–335. doi: 10.1177/0363546510384223. doi: 10.1177/0363546510384223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilk Kevin E., Macrina Leonard C., Fleisig Glenn S., Aune Kyle T., Porterfield Ron A., Harker Paul, Evans Timothy J., Andrews James R. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 10. Vol. 43. SAGE Publications; Deficits in Glenohumeral Passive Range of Motion Increase Risk of Shoulder Injury in Professional Baseball Pitchers: A Prospective Study; pp. 2379–2385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wilk Kevin E., Macrina Leonard C., Fleisig Glenn S., Aune Kyle T., Porterfield Ron A., Harker Paul, Evans Timothy J., Andrews James R. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 9. Vol. 42. SAGE Publications; Deficits in glenohumeral passive range of motion increase risk of elbow injury in professional baseball pitchers: a prospective study; pp. 2075–2081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Glenohumeral passive range of motion and the correlation to elbow injuries in professional baseball pitchers. Wilk Kevin E., Macrina Leonard, Fleisig Glenn S., Aune Kyle, Porterfield Ron, Harker Paul, Andrews James R. Jan 1;2013 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 1(4 Supplement 1):2325967113S0001. doi: 10.1177/2325967113s00017. doi: 10.1177/2325967113s00017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Bullock Garrett S., Uhan Jerneja, Harriss Elinor K., Arden Nigel K., Filbay Stephanie R. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2. Vol. 50. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT); The Relationship Between Baseball Participation and Health: A Systematic Scoping Review; pp. 55–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Is baseball a global sport? America's ‘national pastime’ as global field and international sport. Kelly WILLIAM W. Apr;2007 Global Networks. 7(2):187–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2007.00164.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2007.00164.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kelly M. Participation in baseball on the rise. https://www.mlb.com/news/baseball-participation-increases
  22. Injury trends in Major League Baseball over 18 Seasons: 1998-2015. Conte S., Camp C.L., Dines J.S. 201645(3):116–123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Epidemiology of Major League Baseball injuries. Posner Matthew, Cameron Kenneth L., Wolf Jennifer Moriatis, Belmont Philip J., Jr, Owens Brett D. Jun 27;2011 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 39(8):1675–1691. doi: 10.1177/0363546511411700. doi: 10.1177/0363546511411700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Shoulder injuries among United States high school athletes during the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. Bonza John E., Fields Sarah K., Yard Ellen E., Dawn Comstock R. Jan 1;2009 Journal of Athletic Training. 44(1):76–83. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-44.1.76. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-44.1.76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Epidemiological features of high school baseball njuries in the United States, 2005-2007. Collins Christy L., Comstock R. Dawn. Jun 1;2008 Pediatrics. 121(6):1181–1187. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-2572. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-2572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rankings of high school sports injury rates differ based on time loss assessments. Kerr Zachary Y., Roos Karen G., Djoko Aristarque, Dompier Thomas P., Marshall Stephen W. 2016Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 27(6):548–551. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000405. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Shoulder injuries in US high school baseball and softball athletes, 2005-2008. Krajnik Stephanie, Fogarty Kieran J., Yard Ellen E., Comstock R. Dawn. Mar 1;2010 Pediatrics. 125(3):497–501. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0961. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Injury patterns in selected high school sports: a review of the 1995-1997 seasons. Powell J.W., Barber-Foss K.D. 1999J Athl Train. 34(3):277–284. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. An Epidemiological comparison of elbow injuries among United States high school baseball and softball Players, 2005-2006 Through 2014-2015. Pytiak Andrew V., Kraeutler Matthew J., Currie Dustin W., McCarty Eric C., Comstock R. Dawn. 2018Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 10(2):119–124. doi: 10.1177/1941738117736493. doi: 10.1177/1941738117736493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Epidemiology of shoulder and slbow injuries among United States high school baseball players: school years 2005-2006 through 2014-2015. Saper Michael G., Pierpoint Lauren A., Liu Wei, Comstock R. Dawn, Polousky John D., Andrews James R. 2018The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 46(1):37–43. doi: 10.1177/0363546517734172. doi: 10.1177/0363546517734172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Incidence of injuries in high school softball and baseball players. Shanley Ellen, Rauh Mitchell J., Michener Lori A., Ellenbecker Todd S. Nov 1;2011 Journal of Athletic Training. 46(6):648–654. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-46.6.648. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-46.6.648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Baseball players with ulnar collateral ligament tear demonstrate decreased rotator cuff strength compared to healthy controls. Garrison J.C., Johnston C., Conway J.E. 2015Int J Sports Phys Ther. 10(4):476–481. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Petty Damon H., Andrews James R., Fleisig Glenn S., Cain E. Lyle. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 5. Vol. 32. SAGE Publications; Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in high school baseball players: clinical results and injury risk factors; pp. 1158–1164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Knowles S B, Marshall S W, Miller T, Spicer R, Bowling J M, Loomis D, Millikan R W, Yang J, Mueller F O. Injury Prevention. 6. Vol. 13. BMJ; Cost of injuries from a prospective cohort study of North Carolina high school athletes; pp. 416–421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Garrison J. Craig, Arnold Amanda, Macko Michael J., Conway John E. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 10. Vol. 43. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT); Baseball players diagnosed with ulnar collateral ligament tears demonstrate decreased balance compared to healthy controls; pp. 752–758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hodgins Justin L., Vitale Mark, Arons Raymond R., Ahmad Christopher S. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 3. Vol. 44. SAGE Publications; Epidemiology of medial ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction; pp. 729–734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Baseball pitching biomechanics in relation to pain, injury, and surgery: A systematic review. Bullock G.S., Menon G., Nicholson K., Butler R.J., Arden N.K., Filbay S.R. 2021J Sci med Sport. 24(1):13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lower extremity balance is improved at time of return to throwing in baseball players after an ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction when compared to pre-operative measurements. Hannon J., Garrison J.C., Conway J. 2014Int J Sport Phys Ther. 9(3):356–364. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Shanley Ellen, Rauh Mitchell J., Michener Lori A., Ellenbecker Todd S., Garrison J. Craig, Thigpen Charles A. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 9. Vol. 39. SAGE Publications; Shoulder range of motion measures as risk factors for shoulder and elbow injuries in high school softball and baseball players; pp. 1997–2006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. The growing role of precision and personalized medicine for cancer treatment. Krzyszczyk Paulina, Acevedo Alison, Davidoff Erika J., Timmins Lauren M., Marrero-Berrios Ileana, Patel Misaal, White Corina, Lowe Christopher, Sherba Joseph J., Hartmanshenn Clara, O’Neill Kate M., Balter Max L., Fritz Zachary R., Androulakis Ioannis P., Schloss Rene S., Yarmush Martin L. Sep;2018 Technology. 6(03n04):79–100. doi: 10.1142/s2339547818300020. doi: 10.1142/s2339547818300020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. The decline in breast cancer mortality in Europe: an update (to 2009) Bosetti Cristina, Bertuccio Paola, Levi Fabio, Chatenoud Liliane, Negri Eva, La Vecchia Carlo. Feb;2012 The Breast. 21(1):77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.08.001. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Surgical resection of the primary tumour is associated with improved survival in patients with distant metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis. Ruiterkamp J., Ernst M.F., van de Poll-Franse L.V., Bosscha K., Tjan-Heijnen V.C.G., Voogd A.C. Nov;2009 European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 35(11):1146–1151. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2009.03.012. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2009.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group May;2005 The Lancet. 365(9472):1687–1717. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66544-0. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66544-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Invited commentary: epidemiology and risk assessment. Samet J. M., Schnatter R., Gibb H. Nov 15;1998 American Journal of Epidemiology. 148(10):929–936. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009569. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Council N.R. Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. United States Preventative Task Force Nov 17;2009 Annals of Internal Medicine. 151(10):716–26. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hamburg Margaret A., Collins Francis S. New England Journal of Medicine. 4. Vol. 363. Massachusetts Medical Society; The path to personalized medicine; pp. 301–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tamimi Rulla M., Spiegelman Donna, Smith-Warner Stephanie A., Wang Molin, Pazaris Mathew, Willett Walter C., Eliassen A. Heather, Hunter David J. American Journal of Epidemiology. 12. Vol. 184. Oxford University Press (OUP); Population attributable risk of modifiable and nonmodifiable breast cancer risk factors in postmenopausal breast cancer; pp. 884–893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Reliability of five methods for assessing shoulder range of motion. Hayes Kimberley, Walton Judie R, Szomor Zoltan L, Murrell George AC. 2001Australian Journal of Physiotherapy. 47(4):289–294. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60274-9. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60274-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Examining the influence of physical size among major league pitchers. Forsythe C.M., Crotin R.L., Greenwood M., Bhan S., Karakolis T. 2016J Sport Med Phys Fit. 57(5):572–579. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06355-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Injury history as a risk factor for incident injury in youth soccer. Kucera K L, Marshall S W, Kirkendall D T, Marchak P, Garrett W E. Jul 1;2005 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 39(7):462–462. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2004.013672. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2004.013672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Preseason shoulder strength measurements in professional baseball pitchers: identifying players at risk for injury. Byram Ian R., Bushnell Brandon D., Dugger Keith, Charron Kevin, Harrell Frank E., Jr, Noonan Thomas J. May 20;2010 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 38(7):1375–1382. doi: 10.1177/0363546509360404. doi: 10.1177/0363546509360404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Evaluation of hip internal and external rotation range of motion as an injury risk factor for hip, abdominal and groin injuries in professional baseball players. Li Xinning, Ma Richard, Zhou Hanbing, Thompson Matthew, Dawson Courtney, Nguyen Joseph, Coleman Struan. Dec 28;2015 Orthopedic Reviews. 7(4) doi: 10.4081/or.2015.6142. doi: 10.4081/or.2015.6142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Bushnell Brandon D., Anz Adam W., Noonan Thomas J., Torry Michael R., Hawkins Richard J. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 4. Vol. 38. SAGE Publications; Association of maximum pitch velocity and elbow injury in professional baseball pitchers; pp. 728–732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Loffing F., Hagemann N. Laterality in sports. Elsevier; Performance differences between left-and right-sided athletes in one-on-one interactive sports; pp. 249–277. [Google Scholar]
  56. The differences of humeral torsion angle and the glenohumeral rotation angles between young right-handed and left-handed pitchers. Takeuchi Satoshi, Yoshida Masahito, Sugimoto Katsumasa, Tsuchiya Atsushi, Takenaga Tetsuya, Goto Hideyuki. Apr;2019 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 28(4):678–684. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.002. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Left-handed skeletally mature baseball players have smaller humeral retroversion in the throwing arm than right-handed players. Takenaga Tetsuya, Goto Hideyuki, Sugimoto Katsumasa, Tsuchiya Atsushi, Fukuyoshi Masaki, Nakagawa Hiroki, Nozaki Masahiro, Takeuchi Satoshi, Otsuka Takanobu. Dec;2017 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 26(12):2187–2192. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.014. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Biomechanical differences between left- and right-handed baseball pitchers. Solomito Matthew J., Ferreira Joel V., Nissen Carl W. 2017Sports Biomechanics. 16(2):143–151. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2016.1186725. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2016.1186725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) the TRIPOD statement. Collins Gary S., Reitsma Johannes B., Altman Douglas G., Moons Karel G. Jan 13;2015 Circulation. 131(2):211–219. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.114.014508. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.114.014508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wilk Kevin E., Macrina Leonard C., Fleisig Glenn S., Aune Kyle T., Porterfield Ron A., Harker Paul, Evans Timothy J., Andrews James R. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 10. Vol. 43. SAGE Publications; Deficits in glenohumeral passive range of motion increase risk of shoulder injury in professional baseball pitchers: a prospective study; pp. 2379–2385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Bailey Lane B., Thigpen Charles A., Hawkins Richard J., Beattie Paul F., Shanley Ellen. Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 3. Vol. 9. SAGE Publications; Effectiveness of manual therapy and stretching for baseball players with shoulder range of motion deficits; pp. 230–237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Exceeding pitch count recommendations in Little League baseball increases the chance of requiring Tommy John surgery as a professional baseball pitcher. Erickson Brandon J., Chalmers Peter N., Axe Michael J., Romeo Anthony A. Mar 1;2017 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 5(3):232596711769508. doi: 10.1177/2325967117695085. doi: 10.1177/2325967117695085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Noonan Thomas J., Thigpen Charles A., Bailey Lane B., Wyland Douglas J., Kissenberth Michael, Hawkins Richard J., Shanley Ellen. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 9. Vol. 44. SAGE Publications; Humeral torsion as a risk factor for shoulder and elbow injury in professional baseball pitchers; pp. 2214–2219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy are provided here courtesy of North American Sports Medicine Institute

RESOURCES