Abstract
The use of publicly obtained data (POD) in scientific manuscripts has recently faced compelling criticism.1,2 Data sourced from the Internet is often incomplete, unverified, and lacking documentation, making it impossible to substantiate conclusions drawn from such studies.
Although the strength of a large database study is the quantity and ease in obtaining the data, the inability to dive deeply into the nuances of an individual’s specific medical course and personal considerations can lead to oversimplified or misleading conclusions. Nevertheless, this methodology has increasingly been used in studies of sport-related injuries and their outcomes. Common sources cited for demographic and injury information include fantasy sports websites, player profiles, weekly injury reports, and betting forums, to name a few. The National Football League (NFL) and other professional sports have extensive data collection platforms that are extremely detailed and include epidemiology and outcomes. Recent articles by stewards of the NFL database have highlighted concerning discrepancies between their data and that of studies based on POD.3,4
As an editorial board, we recognize the importance of research exploring injury mechanisms, treatment options, and outcomes—insights that ultimately benefit clinicians and patients. We are responsible for upholding the integrity of the scientific literature by disseminating reliable, high-quality evidence that advances patient care. We encourage those who supervise the large databases created in sports and other industries to prioritize transparency and data-sharing, enabling researchers to conduct robust, well-founded investigations that will truly enhance the field.
Neither FAI nor FAO will consider submissions that include sports-related injury, treatment, or recovery data obtained from PODs.
Footnotes
This editorial has been copublished in Foot & Ankle International.