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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bitchell, Charlotte Leah, Varley-Campbell, Jo, Robinson, Gemma, Stiles, Victoria, Mathema, Prabhat, Moore, Isabel Sarah
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