“This study utilised a follow-up period of one season after the initial encounter. Indeed, there may be subsequent episodes of instability in high-school athletes beyond the follow-up period of this study. Take, for example, a high school freshman who experiences an episode of shoulder instability. According to the metrics utilised in this study, as long as they are able to play in their sophomore season, then they would be considered to have had a successful outcome. What if that same athlete then goes on to have a recurrence in their junior season which causes them to miss most of the season and, therefore, not be seen by college scouts? Or what if they don’t sustain another instability episode, but is consistently fearful of reinjury and has feelings of instability that cause them to have decreased performance and, therefore, never reaches their potential playing ability?
We can hardly consider these to be successful outcomes, although in this study, an athlete such as this hypothetical example would have been part of the “successful” group. As stated above, it is therefore favourable to make sure that the athlete plays a key role in determining what a successful outcome looks like to them.”