Appraising the Methodological Quality of Sports Injury Video Analysis Studies: The QA-SIVAS Scale.

"Declarations FundingOpen Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. There was no other funding related to this project. Competing InterestsAuthors declare that they have no conflict of interest relevant to the content of this article. Availability of Data and MaterialAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in the published article. Authors’ ContributionsTH, JW and TG: concept, planning, design. TG, TH, LR, KH, DF, SW, PM, JW, and TK: development of QA-SIVAS and interpretation of data. TG, LR and TH: reliability and rating time assessment. DD and IK: construct validity assessment. TH and TG: writing the first draft of the manuscript. TG, TH, LR, KH, DF, SW, PM, JW, DD, IK and TK: revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Competing Interests Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest relevant to the content of this article."

"Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. There was no other funding related to this project."

"At first, experts in the field of sports science and sports medicine (TG, TH, LR, KH, DF, SW, PM, JW, and TK) independently listed criteria they considered important when assessing sports injuries by using VA. One reviewer (TG) summarized the group’s responses according to frequency and topic. The categorized criteria were then sent back to the experts. After comparing their submissions with those of the other reviewers, each reviewer was allowed to comment on other statements and to revise their own submissions. Subsequently, the criteria were again categorized by the same reviewer (TG). A face-to-face panel discussion with all contributing experts involved was then held, and this led to the development of the first version of QA-SIVAS. Five raters (TG, TH, LR, DF, SW) compared the scale against five randomly selected VA studies out of a pool of 21 included VA studies of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries from a recent systematic review project (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022337340). The preliminary testing was used to further adjust the rating criteria and instructions. To estimate inter- and intra-rater reliability, three reviewers (TG, LR, TH) independently assessed the risk of bias of all 21 VA studies from the aforementioned recent systematic review project (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022337340) by applying the QA-SIVAS scale. The rating was repeated after 3 weeks. The reliability of the main outcome, the total QA-SIVAS score [%], was estimated by using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC3,1). Results were interpreted as ‘poor’ (ICC < 0.4), ‘fair to good’ (0.4–0.75), and ‘excellent’ (> 0.75). Agreement of each QA-SIVAS item was estimated using free-marginal kappa statistics by Brennan and Prediger [], which minimizes prevalence-related biases. Interpretation of the results was carried out based on Landis and Koch (1977): k < 0 (‘poor’); k = 0.01–0.20 (‘slight’); k = 0.21–0.40 (‘fair’); k = 0.41–0.60 (‘moderate’); k = 0.61–0.80 (‘substantial’); k = 0.81–1.00 (‘almost perfect’)."