LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Sports Medicine/Females at Elevated Triad Risk Need More Care
Sports Medicine

Females at Elevated Triad Risk Need More Care

February 20, 2017 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Females at Elevated Triad Risk Need More Care
Source: Wikimedia Commons and Eckhard Pecher (Arcimboldo)
Secondary

A multicenter study has taken up the issue of the female athlete triad and risk assessment. According to femaleathletetriad.org, “The Female Athlete Triad is a syndrome of three interrelated conditions that exist on a continuum of severity, including, Energy Deficiency with or without Disordered Eating, Menstrual Disturbances/Amenorrhea, Bone Loss/Osteoporosis.”

The study, published in the February 2017 edition of The American Journal of Sports Medicine, was entitled, “Association of the Female Athlete Triad Risk Assessment Stratification to the Development of Bone Stress Injuries in Collegiate Athletes.”

The authors write, “A total of 323 athletes completed both electronic pre-participation physical examination and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans. Of these, 239 athletes with known oligomenorrhea/amenorrhea status were assigned to a low-, moderate-, or high-risk category. Chart review was used to identify athletes who sustained a subsequent BSI [bone stress injury] during collegiate sports participation; the injury required a physician diagnosis and imaging confirmation.”

Michael Fredericson, M.D. is professor of Orthopaedic Surgery and program director for the Primary Care Sports Medicine Fellowship at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Fredericson, a co-author on the study, told OTW, “In 2014, the Female Athlete Triad Coalition published a consensus statement on treatment and return to play of the female athlete triad (De Souza et al. British J Sports Med). Athlete Triad Cumulative Risk Assessment includes the following 6 items scored on a scale from 0 to 2: low energy availability (EA) with or without disordered eating/eating disorder, body mass index (BMI), delayed menarche, oligomenorrhea (6-9 periods in 12 months) or amenorrhea (6 periods over 12 months), low BMD [bone mineral density], and prior stress reaction/fracture. The resulting risk assessment score is used to classify an athlete into 1 of 3 categories: low risk (0-1 points), moderate risk (2-5 points), or high risk (6 points). Ours was the first published study to determine the prevalence of athletes within each risk category based on sport and evaluate the association of risk category to subsequent development of bone stress injuries (BSIs).”

“We found that 29% of female collegiate athletes in this study were classified into moderate- or high-risk categories using the Female Athlete Triad Cumulative Risk Assessment Score. Moderate- and high-risk athletes were more likely to subsequently sustain a BSI. We did not anticipate that there would be such a broad spectrum of athletes from different sports found to be at moderate to high risk.”

“The cumulative risk assessment score is a valuable and easy to use scoring system that can be incorporated into the routine pre-participation exam that allows a better gauge of triad risk factors and prediction of risk for future bone stress injuries. Our findings support guideline recommendations that athletes with elevated triad risk categories should receive active medical treatment, including a nutrition evaluation to determine adequate energy availability and a workup for menstrual dysfunction. The goal of screening for and actively managing triad risk factors may help reduce the risk for adverse health consequences, including subsequently developing a BSI.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy