ArticleSports medicine - open2026
The Untapped Potential of Expert Elicitation in Sports Medicine Epidemiology.
Article in Sports medicine - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sports medicine epidemiology has advanced considerably over the past two decades, with standardized surveillance systems and consensus statements improving the quality of data collection and reporting. Yet the field continues to face structural challenges, including small cohorts, heterogeneous samples, and rare outcomes that undermine reproducibility and limit generalizability. In practice, researchers and clinicians frequently rely on implicit expert judgment to bridge these gaps, but such judgments are often undocumented and irreproducible. Expert elicitation offers a structured, transparent approach to formalizing this knowledge into quantitative priors that can complement empirical data within Bayesian analyses. This commentary introduces expert elicitation to sports medicine epidemiology, drawing on applications of the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF) in our ongoing work. We highlight three key areas where elicitation can strengthen research and practice: 1) studies involving small, sport-specific cohorts, such as Paralympic athletes; 2) analyses of rare or severe events, including catastrophic injuries and sudden illnesses; and 3) underpowered intervention trials, where structured priors can improve interpretation and guide future prevention and treatment strategies. We also share practical insights from our pilot work, including strategies for framing questions, conducting warm-up and challenge exercises, and using real-time visualization to improve accuracy and engagement. Expert elicitation is not without challenges, requiring careful facilitation and appropriate expertise, but it provides a rigorous, reproducible method for transforming clinical judgment into usable data. Wider adoption of this methodology could accelerate progress in athlete health research by formalizing knowledge that already shapes practice but remains largely untapped.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.