Jump to content

Artificial Pitches. . . .Need to go!


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

^Doesn't know what meta-analysis is.

 

^^^ Thinks meta-analysis means all available studies included.

"Meta-analysis is the statistical procedure for combining data from multiple studies."

Therefor, doesn't know what meta analysis means and is cherry picking.

Unlucky.

 

eta

This from the very 1st link in that list.

"The findings of this study, however, may not be generalizable to other levels of competition or to other artificial surfaces."

Edited by Romeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Romeo said:

^^^ Thinks meta-analysis means all available studies included.

"Meta-analysis is the statistical procedure for combining data from multiple studies."

Therefor, doesn't know what meta analysis means.

Unlucky.

^doesn't understand the whole point is to define your search explicitly before you do it and review and exclude papers with questionable methodology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

^^^ Is deciding which papers are questionable.

Cherry picking v2

You clearly have no idea. Meta-analysis is completely the opposite of cherry picking. When you cherry pick you look at all the studies and pick out which ones fit your narrative.

In meta-analysis you define your question and search terms and identify all studies that include your search terms. You then review them and include all of the studies that meet a pre-defined quality threshold. You then do statistical analysis on all of the pooled data. Meta-analyses are by far the gold standard in medical research, purely because they're less open to bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cyclizine said:

You clearly have no idea. Meta-analysis is completely the opposite of cherry picking. When you cherry pick you look at all the studies and pick out which ones fit your narrative.

In meta-analysis you define your question and search terms and identify all studies that include your search terms. You then review them and include all of the studies that meet a pre-defined quality threshold. You then do statistical analysis on all of the pooled data. Meta-analyses are by far the gold standard in medical research, purely because they're less open to bias.

This from the very 1st link in that list.

"The findings of this study, however, may not be generalizable to other levels of competition or to other artificial surfaces."

from the 2nd link

"a higher rate of ankle injury was found on artificial turf."

You clearly haven't read any of those studies.

Edited by Romeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

This from the very 1st link in that list.

"The findings of this study, however, may not be generalizable to other levels of competition or to other artificial surfaces."

from the 2nd link

"a higher rate of ankle injury was found on artificial turf."

Well done! I'll not bother copying and pasting the counter-examples, but have a look at this guide to critical appraisal and we might get somewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought - if injuries happen on grass and AstroTurf (for want of a better description)  isn't the answer to play all games on asphalt?

Or maybe give up playing football altogether - although there might be a few clubs further down that route than others.... :whistle

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Romeo said:

This from the very 1st link in that list.

"The findings of this study, however, may not be generalizable to other levels of competition or to other artificial surfaces."

from the 2nd link

"a higher rate of ankle injury was found on artificial turf."

You clearly haven't read any of those studies.

Are you sure you have?

Quote: "FieldTurf is, in many cases, safer than natural grass when comparing injuries in collegiate men’s soccer."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Durnford said:

Are you sure you have?

Quote: "FieldTurf is, in many cases, safer than natural grass when comparing injuries in collegiate men’s soccer."

 

 

Exactly my point, there is no definitive answer. Some on here......would have you believe there is and by using "meta-analysis" would try to shoot down any opposing view.

we can all agree that football on artificial surfaces is utter shite anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

Of course not :thumsup2

Fine... I can cherry-pick as well if you want.

Quote

"The overall rate of injury on artificial turf was noninferior to that on natural grass"

Quote

"Artificial turf pitches don’t seem to contribute to injury incidence in young football players"

Quote

 "We found no evidence that playing matches or training on AT raises the risk of soccer players sustaining injury. In fact, the evidence suggests that the risk of some injuries and some subgroups might be lowered"

Quote

"The ... study design with ... adds to the current belief that 3G artificial turf does not increase injury risk in football

I'll stick with the current expert opinion of sports medicine experts, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of meta-analysis is to combine the results from multiple studies in order to obtain more statistical power. This can often be very useful - for example if there are a number of small studies which each suggest a small but non-significant effect, then sometimes combining them together gives a larger sample size and thus allows us to see a significant effect overall.

This process does involve giving different weight to studies depending on their perceived quality and relevance, or even excluding unsuitable studies completely. However, this is not cherry-picking if done scrupulously. Journal publications typically need to pass peer-review and editor approval, and this process weeds out most of the dodgier analyses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Romeo said:

Exactly my point, there is no definitive answer. Some on here......would have you believe there is and by using "meta-analysis" would try to shoot down any opposing view.

we can all agree that football on artificial surfaces is utter shite anyway.

Your argument is that there are more injuries on artificial grass. This is untrue: as the research shows, there's no appreciable difference! It's not a case of answering one way or the other, the whole point is there isn't a difference in injury severity or rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cyclizine said:

Your argument is that there are more injuries on artificial grass. This is untrue: as the research shows, there's no appreciable difference! It's not a case of answering one way or the other, the whole point is there isn't a difference in injury severity or rate.

So that's it then, it's been scientifically decided?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

So that's it then, it's been scientifically decided?

The overwhelming body of evidence at the moment is that there is no difference between natural and artificial grass in terms of rate and severity of injury. The consensus in the present literature says this. However, there may be more studies done in the future that change the level of evidence one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Romeo said:

Exactly my point, there is no definitive answer. Some on here......would have you believe there is and by using "meta-analysis" would try to shoot down any opposing view.

we can all agree that football on artificial surfaces is utter shite anyway.

To be honest I've seen plenty of shite football irrespective of surface in my 60 years of watching the game.

That being said the worst football I've seen recently has been with the English premiership - which isn't to do with the quality of the surface but more with the level of playacting; cheating and general over analytic nature of the hypo-commercial professional game; but then that's probably a different arguement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...