In recent years, there has been a noticeable amount of discussion surrounding reporting methods in sports injury epidemiology.1–3 Particular emphasis has been placed on characterising the scope of impact that an injury poses in various sporting contexts. Depicting the extent of an injury problem using specific metrics can be complex and challenging. While movements towards comprehensive reporting are important, it is equally vital to consider the inherent characteristics of the metrics and measures reported in epidemiological studies. These considerations influence how general consumers understand the information and how medical professionals perceive and respond to the broader implications of sports-related injuries. The aim of this article is to critically examine the complexities surrounding summary metrics used to represent injury sequelae in sports injury epidemiology and to advocate for nuanced approaches to conceptualising and reporting the impact of sport-related injuries. Various methods have been used to describe the epidemiological features of injuries and to evaluate the efficacy of injury prevention measures.4–6 In efforts to describe injury sequelae, measures such as severity and injury burden are frequently employed alongside the calculation of injury incidence rates.3 While the authors herein endorse using various metrics to comprehensively illustrate the scope of injury issues, we advocate for thoroughly considering the inferential implications of the reported measures to provide a clear and multifaceted understanding, particularly for clinicians. Historically, reporting injury severity—often equated with time loss—has been a mainstay in sports injury research.7–9 Similarly, there has been a recent surge in the reporting of injury burden, typically quantified as the product of the injury incidence rate and average time loss.10 Disregarding the mathematical intricacies of calculating these measures, it is pertinent to acknowledge that metrics such as ‘severity’ and ‘burden’ represent latent or unobserved constructs. Therefore, while it may be convenient to enumerate …

中文翻译：

---

运动损伤流行病学的当代报告：谨慎选择词语并考虑整体损伤影响框架


近年来，围绕运动损伤流行病学报告方法的讨论相当多。1-3 特别强调描述损伤在各种运动环境中造成的影响范围。使用特定指标描述伤害问题的严重程度可能很复杂且具有挑战性。虽然全面报告的运动很重要，但考虑流行病学研究中报告的指标和措施的固有特征同样重要。这些考虑因素会影响普通消费者如何理解信息，以及医疗专业人员如何看待和应对运动相关伤害的更广泛影响。本文的目的是批判性地研究运动损伤流行病学中用于表示损伤后遗症的汇总指标的复杂性，并倡导采用细致入微的方法来概念化和报告运动相关损伤的影响。4-6 在描述伤害后遗症的努力中，严重程度和伤害负担等指标经常与伤害发生率的计算一起被采用。3 虽然作者赞成使用各种指标来全面说明伤害问题的范围， 我们主张彻底考虑所报告措施的推理意义，以提供清晰和多方面的理解，特别是对于临床医生。从历史上看，报告损伤严重程度（通常等同于时间损失）一直是运动损伤研究的支柱。7-9 同样，最近伤害负担的报告激增，通常量化为伤害发生率和平均时间损失的乘积。10 忽略计算这些指标的数学复杂性，承认“严重性”和“负担”等指标代表潜在或未观察到的结构是相关的。因此，虽然列举可能很方便......