|
Citation
|
Bitchell CL, Varley-Campbell J, Robinson G, Stiles V, Mathema P, Moore IS. Sports Med. Open 2020; 6(1): e58. |
|
Abstract
|
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.
Language: en |