TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Female Athlete Triad Coalition and RED-S risk assessment tools
AU - Koltun, Kristen J.
AU - Strock, Nicole C.A.
AU - Southmayd, Emily A.
AU - Oneglia, Andrew P.
AU - Williams, Nancy I.
AU - De Souza, Mary Jane
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Pennsylvania State University [Childhood Obesity Prevention Training Program];U.S. Department of Defense [PR054531].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2019/11/2
Y1 - 2019/11/2
N2 - The Female Athlete Triad Coalition (Triad Coalition) and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) consensus statements each include risk assessment tools to guide athlete eligibility decisions. This study examined how these tools categorized the same set of individuals to an overall risk factor score and qualitatively compared athlete eligibility decisions resulting from each tool. Exercising women (n = 166) with complete screening/baseline datasets from multiple previously conducted studies were assessed. Data used for risk assessment included: anthropometric measurements, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, exercise and health status surveys, and two disordered eating questionnaires (Three Factor Eating Questionnaire and Eating Disorder Inventory). Individuals were scored on each tool and subsequently categorized as either fully cleared, provisionally cleared, or restricted from play. Based on the Triad Coalition tool, 25.3% of subjects were classified as fully cleared, 62.0% as provisionally cleared, and 12.7% as restricted from play. Based on the RED-S tool, 71.7% of subjects were classified as fully cleared, 18.7% as provisionally cleared, and 9.6% as restricted from play. The Triad Coalition and RED-S tools resulted in different clearance decisions (p < 0.001), with the Triad Coalition tool recommending increased surveillance of a greater number of athletes.
AB - The Female Athlete Triad Coalition (Triad Coalition) and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) consensus statements each include risk assessment tools to guide athlete eligibility decisions. This study examined how these tools categorized the same set of individuals to an overall risk factor score and qualitatively compared athlete eligibility decisions resulting from each tool. Exercising women (n = 166) with complete screening/baseline datasets from multiple previously conducted studies were assessed. Data used for risk assessment included: anthropometric measurements, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, exercise and health status surveys, and two disordered eating questionnaires (Three Factor Eating Questionnaire and Eating Disorder Inventory). Individuals were scored on each tool and subsequently categorized as either fully cleared, provisionally cleared, or restricted from play. Based on the Triad Coalition tool, 25.3% of subjects were classified as fully cleared, 62.0% as provisionally cleared, and 12.7% as restricted from play. Based on the RED-S tool, 71.7% of subjects were classified as fully cleared, 18.7% as provisionally cleared, and 9.6% as restricted from play. The Triad Coalition and RED-S tools resulted in different clearance decisions (p < 0.001), with the Triad Coalition tool recommending increased surveillance of a greater number of athletes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068785527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068785527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/02640414.2019.1640551
DO - 10.1080/02640414.2019.1640551
M3 - Article
C2 - 31296115
AN - SCOPUS:85068785527
SN - 0264-0414
VL - 37
SP - 2433
EP - 2442
JO - Journal of Sports Sciences
JF - Journal of Sports Sciences
IS - 21
ER -