Cargando…
Recurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Review
BACKGROUND: Injury surveillance in professional sport categorises injuries as either “new” or “recurrent”. In an attempt to make categorisation more specific, subsequent injury categorisation models have been developed, but it is not known how often these models are used. The aim was to assess how r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7714809/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33270184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00286-3 |
_version_ | 1783618817187905536 |
---|---|
author | Bitchell, Charlotte Leah Varley-Campbell, Jo Robinson, Gemma Stiles, Victoria Mathema, Prabhat Moore, Isabel Sarah |
author_facet | Bitchell, Charlotte Leah Varley-Campbell, Jo Robinson, Gemma Stiles, Victoria Mathema, Prabhat Moore, Isabel Sarah |
author_sort | Bitchell, Charlotte Leah |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Injury surveillance in professional sport categorises injuries as either “new” or “recurrent”. In an attempt to make categorisation more specific, subsequent injury categorisation models have been developed, but it is not known how often these models are used. The aim was to assess how recurrent and subsequent injuries are reported within professional and elite sport. METHODS: Online databases were searched using a search strategy. Studies needed to prospectively report injury rates within professional or elite sports that have published consensus statements for injury surveillance. RESULTS: A total of 1322 titles and abstract were identified and screened. One hundred and ninety-nine studies were screened at full text resulting in 81 eligible studies. Thirty studies did not report recurrent injuries and were excluded from data extraction. Within the studies that reported recurrent injuries, 21 reported the number and percentage; 13 reported only the proportion within all injuries; three reported only the number; five reported the number, percentage and incidence; and two only reported the incidence. Seven studies used subsequent injury terminology, with three reporting subsequent injury following concussion, one using an amended subsequent injury model and three using specific subsequent injury categorisation models. The majority of subsequent injuries (ranging from 51 to 80%) were categorised as different and unrelated to the index injury. The proportion of recurrent injuries (exact same body area and nature related to index injury) ranged from 5 to 21%. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting recurrent or subsequent injuries remains inconsistent, and few studies have utilised subsequent injury models. There is limited understanding of subsequent injury risk, which may affect the development of injury prevention strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019119264 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7714809 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77148092020-12-04 Recurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Review Bitchell, Charlotte Leah Varley-Campbell, Jo Robinson, Gemma Stiles, Victoria Mathema, Prabhat Moore, Isabel Sarah Sports Med Open Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Injury surveillance in professional sport categorises injuries as either “new” or “recurrent”. In an attempt to make categorisation more specific, subsequent injury categorisation models have been developed, but it is not known how often these models are used. The aim was to assess how recurrent and subsequent injuries are reported within professional and elite sport. METHODS: Online databases were searched using a search strategy. Studies needed to prospectively report injury rates within professional or elite sports that have published consensus statements for injury surveillance. RESULTS: A total of 1322 titles and abstract were identified and screened. One hundred and ninety-nine studies were screened at full text resulting in 81 eligible studies. Thirty studies did not report recurrent injuries and were excluded from data extraction. Within the studies that reported recurrent injuries, 21 reported the number and percentage; 13 reported only the proportion within all injuries; three reported only the number; five reported the number, percentage and incidence; and two only reported the incidence. Seven studies used subsequent injury terminology, with three reporting subsequent injury following concussion, one using an amended subsequent injury model and three using specific subsequent injury categorisation models. The majority of subsequent injuries (ranging from 51 to 80%) were categorised as different and unrelated to the index injury. The proportion of recurrent injuries (exact same body area and nature related to index injury) ranged from 5 to 21%. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting recurrent or subsequent injuries remains inconsistent, and few studies have utilised subsequent injury models. There is limited understanding of subsequent injury risk, which may affect the development of injury prevention strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019119264 Springer International Publishing 2020-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7714809/ /pubmed/33270184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00286-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Bitchell, Charlotte Leah Varley-Campbell, Jo Robinson, Gemma Stiles, Victoria Mathema, Prabhat Moore, Isabel Sarah Recurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Review |
title | Recurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Review |
title_full | Recurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Recurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Recurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Review |
title_short | Recurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Review |
title_sort | recurrent and subsequent injuries in professional and elite sport: a systematic review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7714809/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33270184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00286-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bitchellcharlotteleah recurrentandsubsequentinjuriesinprofessionalandelitesportasystematicreview AT varleycampbelljo recurrentandsubsequentinjuriesinprofessionalandelitesportasystematicreview AT robinsongemma recurrentandsubsequentinjuriesinprofessionalandelitesportasystematicreview AT stilesvictoria recurrentandsubsequentinjuriesinprofessionalandelitesportasystematicreview AT mathemaprabhat recurrentandsubsequentinjuriesinprofessionalandelitesportasystematicreview AT mooreisabelsarah recurrentandsubsequentinjuriesinprofessionalandelitesportasystematicreview |