Background Multi-factorial sport injury related models are well accepted for sport medicine scientists and experts. However, injury risk factors research involved with winter sport athletes seems not well documented due to its complicated, interactive intrinsic and extrinsic factors.

Objective To exam the significant difference and correlation relationships between injury outcomes and winter sport elite athletes' intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors.

Design and Setting A cross-section and retrospective risk of injury questionnaire (Risk-IQ) designed for elite athlete in training period was employed. Currently active and retired national delegation athletes of Olympic winter sports were recruited.

Participants 34 winter Olympic sport elite athletes (f/m 13/21 age=28.9+-7.7) were recruited from national sport training centres, sport federations and universities fron both Germany and Taiwan.

Assessment of Risk Factors Potential risk for athletic accumulated injuries were assessed through 6 intrinsic (age, gender, experience, stress, cardiovascular problems and importance of risk screening) and 6 extrinsic (nation, sport type, training environment, periodic health examination(PHE)/preparticipation evaluation (PPE), physical complains, medical care support) factors. Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test and Spearmann correlation test were used.

Main Outcome Measurements The total sport training related injury incidences were planned as outcome measurements. The adapted intrinsic and extrinsic injury related risk factors were tested for significance difference and correlations.

Results Significant results were found in intrinsic factors: age (10 body-part p<0.01; back & chest p<0.01; shoulder & arm p<0.01, elbow & hand p<0.01; hip & thigh p<0.01; knee p<0.05), stress level (knee r=0.348 p<0.05, foot & toe r=0.404 p<0.05); in extrinsic factors: nation (p<0.01), sport type(Olympic), PHE screen(back p<0.05, physical complain on knee(r=0.355, p<0.05l leg & ankle r=0.487 p<0.01) and foot (elbow & hand r=0.386, p<0.05).

Conclusions Some factors showed their significant results with body-part specificity (only some body-parts but not others) which deserved further detailed investigation with greater subject population.