No, I'm ssaying that the authors of the paper stated, in the paper, that it absolutely understated the number of deaths.
By design.
Because it never tried to determine the number of deaths and only looked at a small subset of the data.
Sadly, I'm sure this won't keep you from misrepresenting the study in the future.
Your contention is that the degree of underestimation MUST be enough to mean that the reports of death on the field are not a significant increase over past years.
But you’re misquoting the article.
Your supposed kill shot (no pun intended, troll-boi)
“The most important limitation however is that SCD in young athletes as reported in the published and studied papers is certainly underestimated. Most of the events occur in youth potentially involved in sports activities, which are not reported in the literature. SCD is therefore likely to have comprised more than the 1101 athletes in the 38-year period across the world, which we reported”
was about their study — which never pretended to try to count all the cases: but their study was looking for cases which were reported in the literature, so they could find common etiology.
What is important for your argument, are the quoted overall rates of sudden cardiac death in young athletes: which are not derived from their 1101 cases — but are in footnotes 4, 6, 8-10.
Unfortunately, those articles are behind paywalls and I can’t drill down into them.
But you have the article all wrong yourself, and are projecting your misunderstanding onto me.
Troll.