Cyclizine Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 48 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said: Evidence? Incidence, Mechanisms, and Severity of Match-Related Collegiate Men's Soccer Injuries on FieldTurf and Natural Grass Surfaces: A 6-Year Prospective Study Injury Surveillance in Major League Soccer: A 4-Year Comparison of Injury on Natural Grass Versus Artificial Turf Field A Prospective Analysis of the Injury Incidence of Young Male Professional Football Players on Artificial Turf A Meta-Analysis of Soccer Injuries on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass The incidence and nature of injuries sustained on grass and 3rd generation artificial turf: a pilot study in elite Saudi National Team footballers There you go, sat waiting for a parcel so did a quick Medline search. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 (edited) 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 September 19, 2019 by Romeo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 Just now, Cyclizine said: ^doesn't understand the whole point is to define your search explicitly before you do it and review and exclude papers with questionable methodology ^^^ Is deciding which papers are questionable. Cherry picking v2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 (edited) 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 September 19, 2019 by Romeo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demented Zebra Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 Plastic pitches make a mockery of the Scottish Premiership. Utter joke. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durnford Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Cyclizine said: Well done! I'll not bother copying and pasting the counter-examples Of course not 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durnford Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Romeo said: Of course not 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Cyclizine said: Fine... I can cherry-pick as well if you want. I'll stick with the current expert opinion of sports medicine experts, though. All sports medicine experts? Edited September 19, 2019 by Romeo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 19 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: I'll stick with the current expert opinion of sports medicine experts, though. Fair enough. You might want to edit the above statement though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durnford Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.