Citation

Hammond LE, Lilley J, Ribbans WJ. Br. J. Sports Med. 2009; 43(7): 498-502.

Affiliation

University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, BMJ Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1136/bjsm.2008.051979

PMID

19050000

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare versions 8 and 10 of the Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS) to determine whether the revised version of OSICS has improved its use in a sports medicine setting, and to assess the inter-rater reliability of OSICS-10. METHODS: Injury surveillance data, gathered over a 2-year period in professional Football, Cricket and Rugby Union to produce 335 diagnoses, were coded with both OSICS-8 and OSICS-10. Code-diagnosis agreement was assessed for OSICS-8 in terms of whether a diagnosis was codeable or noncodeable, and for OSICS-10 by evaluating the highest available OSICS-10 tier of coding. Eight clinicians coded a list of 20 diagnoses, comprising a range of pathologies to all gross anatomical regions, which were compared to assess inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: All diagnoses could be assigned an appropriate code with OSICS-10, compared to 87% of diagnoses that could be assigned an OSICS-8 code. Contusions comprised almost half of OSICS-8 noncodeable diagnoses. OSICS-10 tier 2 codes accounted for 20% of diagnoses coded with the updated system. Of these 20%, almost half contained a more detailed diagnosis that did not have an available OSICS-10 tier 3 or 4 code. Inter-rater reliability increased with decreasing diagnostic detail, with an overall level shown to be moderate (k=0.56). CONCLUSIONS: OSICS-10 is a more encompassing system than OSICS-8 to use in classifying sports medicine diagnoses, and has a moderate level of inter-rater reliability. Further minor revision may be required to address lack of detail in some strain, effusion and contusion codes.

Language: en