CJSM Podcast 5

jsm-podcast-bg-1I’m pleased to present the journal’s fifth podcast, highlighting the new ACSM and FIMS consensus statement on the Preparticipation evaluation (PPE) published just last week in the November 2014 CJSM.

I was able to interview William Roberts, M.D., M.S., FACSM, the lead author of the study.  I learned a lot from the conversation with Dr. Roberts.  I hope you do too.

Listen to the podcast here, or use the iTunes link found on the main page to check out all of our podcasts.

And while you are at it, please also visit the previous blog post and take the poll:  we’re interested to know if you use electronic documentation and data storage when you conduct PPE’s (a so-called ‘e-PPE’).  Enjoy!

 

 

Advertisements

The November CJSM and the PPE

Halloween, El Dia de los Muertos….Guy Fawkes Day!  We end October and roll into November in an exciting way in North America and across the Atlantic…..all the more so here at CJSM, where November 1 marks the publication of our sixth and last issue of the calendar year.  Our crew–ranging from the Editor in Chief in London to our Managing Editor in Canada–can, perhaps, take a few days break and indulge in the candies, dulces, or bonfires, as the case may be.  And the rest of us can enjoy the treat of the new journal.   We have a great issue in store, and I plan on profiling over the next month several of the published studies here in the blog.  The headliner has to be the in-depth view on the athletic preparticipation physical evaluation (PPE):

Advancing the Preparticipation Physical Evaluation:  An ACSM and FIMS Joint Consensus Statement.

Check it out:  it’s free even without a subscription to the journal, for the time being.

I am working on the podcast production phase of an interview I had with the lead author, William Roberts, M.D.;  the final product promises to be a lot of fun and will be broadcast soon. One of the subjects Dr. Roberts and I touched on in that talk was the potential value of the electronic evaluation, or ‘e-PPE.’  To whet your appetite for what is to come, why don’t you take the poll at the top of this post, and let us know if you use an e-PPE in your practice (in Ohio, where I practice, we just started using them with high school athletes this spring).  Then, click on the link above to the study itself.

Stay tuned for the podcast, and be sure to check out the entire new issue.  November is here, and with it the promise of good things in the journal and on the blog.

The November CJSM: A Discussion on the Mandatory Use of Bicycle Helmets

The November issue of CJSM has been out for a week, and I hope you’ve had a chance to look at our latest offering.  It is also our last offering for 2013 (CJSM is a bimonthly, publishing 6 times a year).  The next time the journal will hit your mailboxes and inboxes will be January 2014.

FIMS 2014

Quebec City, site of the XXXIII FIMS
World Congress of Sports Medicine
CJSM will be there: will you?

2014 promises to be a big year in sports and sports medicine.  The Winter Olympics take place in Sochi, Russia; the FIFA World Cup is in Brazil; and the Commonwealth Games are in Glasgow, Scotland.   On the sports medicine front, the Canadian Academy of Sports and Exercise Medicine (CASEM) hosts the FIMS 2014 World Congress of Sports Medicine in Quebec City, and earlier in the spring the AMSSM annual meeting takes place in the Big Easy.  And this brief listing, of course, merely scratches the surface of what is to come.

But before I get ahead of myself, best to hold on to the mantra, “Be Here Now,” and share with you a little of what’s in store when you delve into this month’s CJSM.

Headlining the November issue is CASEM’s position statement on the mandatory use of bicycle helmets.  This document is a revision of a previous statement made in 2002, and incorporates the medical evidence in support of such use that has accumulated over the last 10+ years.  There is an associated lead editorial by Murray Maitland, PhD that is definitely worth a read as well.

I was particularly interested in the CASEM offering at least in part because I am a regular bicycle commuter here in Columbus, Ohio who recently had his interest in such matters piqued after reading a provocative article in the NY Times:  “Is it OK to Kill Cyclists?”

That’s a rhetorical question mind you!

First having ensured the life insurance policy had been paid up, I then read through the CASEM statement, which packs a lot in two pages.  The statement surveys the field of what is known about the use of bicycle helmets and injury prevention, and then makes recommendations.  Some of the salient points I walked away with: 1) wearing a properly fitted helmet decreases head injuries by 63% to 88% in all ages of bicyclists; 2) introduction of legislation (i.e. not merely relying on education campaigns) is associated with a decreased injury rate and has not been shown to decrease ridership (importantly, as we seek to increase physical activity in our sedentary population); 3) youth populations are more likely to wear helmets where there is legislation that applies to riders of all ages as opposed to only 18 years and younger; 4) youth are more likely to wear helmets when cycling with an adult wearing a helmet (95%) than when cycling with an adult not wearing a helmet (41%).

The CASEM statement draws several conclusions from these data, but most importantly recommends “That all Provincial and Territorial governments should enact comprehensive legislation mandating that bicyclists of all ages wear helmets.”

I would concur with those recommendations, and I would love to hear your thoughts after reading the CASEM statement, either here in the comments section or on twitter @cjsmonline.  The CJSM executive editor, Chris Hughes, has written about this subject in a 2011 blog post, and notes that the associated poll of the readership taken at that time got more traffic than any other.  I’m hoping this month’s articles on the subject, and this blog post, encourages that same sort of commentary.

923380_10151585476514581_1263666389_n

My trusty steed has been known to fail me;
I’m happy to have a helmet on when riding it

My position on the matter (pro) is uncomplicated.  I think the data are clear and in favor of mandatory use of bicycle helmets:  mandatory legislation reduces serious injury; it encourages the most vulnerable (children) in the use of an injury prevention device; and it has not been shown to decrease ridership. Read more of this post

%d bloggers like this: