4.6 Article

Pre-participation health evaluation in adolescent athletes competing at Youth Olympic Games: proposal for a tailored protocol

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 17, 页码 1111-+

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099651

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To promote sports participation in young people, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) introduced the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) in 2007. In 2009, the IOC Consensus Statement was published, which highlighted the value of periodic health evaluation in elite athletes. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of a comprehensive protocol for illness and injury detection, tailored for adolescent athletes participating in Summer or Winter YOG. Methods Between 2010 and 2014, a total of 247 unique adolescent elite Italian athletes (53% females), mean age 16 +/- 1,0 years, competing in 22 summer or 15 winter sport disciplines, were evaluated through a tailored pre-participation health evaluation protocol, at the Sports Medicine and Science Institute of the Italian Olympic Committee. Results In 30 of the 247 athletes (12%), the preparticipation evaluation led to the final diagnosis of pathological conditions warranting treatment and/or surveillance, including cardiovascular in 11 (4.5%), pulmonary in 11 (4.5%), endocrine in five (2.0%), infectious, neurological and psychiatric disorders in one each (0.4%). Based on National and International Guidelines and Recommendations, none of the athletes was considered at high risk for acute events and all were judged eligible to compete at the YOG. Athletes with abnormal conditions were required to undergo a periodic follow-up. Conclusions The Youth Pre-Participation Health Evaluation proved to be effective in identifying a wide range of disorders, allowing prompt treatment, appropriate surveillance and avoidance of potential long-term consequences, in a significant proportion (12%) of adolescent Italian Olympic athletes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据