Including Modifiable and Nonmodifiable Factors Improves Injury Risk Assessment in Professional Baseball Pitchers

Limitations of Separating Athletes into High or Low-Risk Groups based on a Cut-Off. A Clinical Commentary

Background

Athlete injury risk assessment and management is an important, yet challenging task for sport and exercise medicine professionals. A common approach to injury risk screening is to stratify athletes into risk groups based on their performance on a test relative to a cut-off threshold. However, one potential reason for ineffective injury prevention efforts is the over-reliance on identifying these 'at-risk' groups using arbitrary cut-offs for these tests and measures. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the conceptual and technical issues related to the use of a cut-off in both research and clinical practice.

Clinical Question

How can we better assess and interpret clinical tests or measures to enable a more effective injury risk assessment in athletes?

Key Results

Cut-offs typically lack strong biologic plausibility to support them; and are typically derived in a data-driven manner and thus not generalizable to other samples. When a cut-off is used in analyses, information is lost, leading to potentially misleading results and less accurate injury risk prediction. Dichotomizing a continuous variable using a cut-off should be avoided. Using continuous variables on its original scale is advantageous because information is not discarded, outcome prediction accuracy is not lost, and personalized medicine can be facilitated.

Clinical Application

Researchers and clinicians are encouraged to analyze and interpret the results of tests and measures using continuous variables and avoid relying on singular cut-offs to guide decisions. Injury risk can be predicted more accurately when using continuous variables in their natural form. A more accurate risk prediction will facilitate personalized approaches to injury risk mitigation and may lead to a decline in injury rates.

Level of Evidence

5.

Organizational risk profiling and education associated with reduction in professional pitching arm injuries: a natural experiment

Background

Risk profiling and education are strategies implemented to help reduce injury risk; however, currently. there is little evidence on the effect of these interventions on injury incidence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of risk profiling and education on upper extremity injury incidence in minor league (MiLB) pitchers and to stratify by injury severity.

Methods

A prospective natural experiment study was conducted from 2013 to 2019 on MiLB pitchers. Beginning in the 2015 season, pitchers were examined and risk profiled for upper extremity injury. Shoulder external, internal, total range of motion, horizontal adduction, and humeral torsion were measured. Organizational risk profiling and education was implemented starting in 2015, based on preseason assessments. Chi-squared test was performed to investigate potential differences between shoulder range of motion risk categories between 2013-2014 (pre) and 2015-2019 (post) seasons. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to assess the association between organizational risk profiling and education on arm injury in MiLB pitchers and were repeated for 7-27 and 28+ day injury severity.

Results

297 pitchers were included (pre: 119, post: 178). Upper extremity injury incidence was 1.5 injuries per 1000 athletic exposures. Pitchers in the 2015-2019 seasons demonstrated increased preseason shoulder injury risk for internal (P = .003) and external (P = .007), while the 2013-2014 seasons demonstrated greater horizontal adduction risk (P = .04). There were no differences between seasons for total range of motion risk (P =.76). Risk profiling and education resulted in an adjusted time loss upper extremity injury reduction for the 2015-2019 seasons (0.68 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.99)), which impacted 7-27 days (0.62 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.93)) but not for 28+ days (0.71 (95% CI: 0.47, 1.06)) time loss. There was no reduction in combined trunk and lower extremity injuries for the 2015-2019 seasons (1.55 (95% CI: 0.79, 3.01)).

Conclusions

Organizational risk profiling and education appear to reduce professional pitching overall and 7-27-day upper extremity injury risk by 33%-38%. There was no difference in trunk and lower extremity injuries over the period, strengthening the reduction in upper extremity injury risk results. This suggests that while injury risk increased over time, organizational risk profiling mitigated the expected increase in upper extremity injury rates. Risk profiling and education can be used as a clinical screening and intervention tool to help decrease upper extremity injuries in professional baseball populations.

Shoulder Range of Motion Measurements and Baseball Elbow Injuries: Ambiguity in Scientific Models, Approach, and Execution is Hurting Overhead Athlete Health

Elbow injuries are a significant and increasing issue in baseball. Elbow injuries account for 16% of all injuries sustained at the professional level and collegiate level. Because of the continued rise in injury rates, loss of performance value, and medical burden, sports medicine clinicians have attempted to research the causes underlying this injury epidemic in an attempt to help mitigate baseball elbow injuries. Shoulder range of motion (ROM) is the most researched clinical metric related to elbow injuries in baseball and has the greatest consensus as a viable prognostic factor specifically for medial elbow injury. Shoulder ROM is easy to measure, can be modified through stretching and manual therapy interventions, and can be easily assessed during preseason screening throughout all baseball levels. Despite a large number of studies and the widespread use of shoulder ROM in injury risk screening, current findings are unclear as to whether there is a true cause-effect relation with baseball elbow injuries. We argue that the conflicting findings revolving around the value of shoulder ROM measurements associated with baseball elbow injuries are the result of 4 gaps in the research approaches implemented to date: ambiguous research questions, mixed study populations, statistical models used, and shoulder ROM methodology. Specifically, there is a mismatch of methods, statistical models, and conclusions such as (1) investigating the association (i.e., correlation) between shoulder ROM measurements and injury and (2) investigating the cause-effect relation of shoulder ROM to baseball injuries. The purpose of this article is to detail the required scientific steps to evaluate whether preseason shoulder ROM is a potential causal factor for pitching elbow injury. We also provide recommendations to allow for future causal inferences to be made between shoulder ROM and elbow injury. This information will ultimately assist in informing clinical models of care and decision making for baseball throwers.