Bitchell Charlotte Leah, Varley-Campbell Jo, Robinson Gemma, Stiles Victoria, Mathema Prabhat, Moore Isabel Sarah
Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK.
University College London, London, UK.
Sports Med Open. 2020 Dec 3;6(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s40798-020-00286-3.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
CRD42019119264.
职业体育中的伤病监测将伤病分为“新伤”或“复发伤”。为使分类更具体,后续开发了伤病分类模型,但尚不清楚这些模型的使用频率。目的是评估职业和精英体育中复发伤及后续伤病的报告情况。
采用检索策略对在线数据库进行检索。研究需前瞻性报告职业或精英体育中的伤病发生率,这些体育项目已发布伤病监测的共识声明。
共识别并筛选了1322篇标题和摘要。对199项研究进行了全文筛选,最终有81项符合条件的研究。30项研究未报告复发伤,被排除在数据提取之外。在报告复发伤的研究中,21项报告了数量和百分比;13项仅报告了所有伤病中的比例;3项仅报告了数量;5项报告了数量、百分比和发生率;2项仅报告了发生率。7项研究使用了后续伤病术语,其中3项报告了脑震荡后的后续伤病,1项使用了修正后的后续伤病模型,3项使用了特定的后续伤病分类模型。大多数后续伤病(51%至80%)被归类为与索引伤不同且无关的伤病。复发伤(与索引伤相同身体部位且性质相关)的比例在5%至21%之间。
复发伤或后续伤病的报告仍然不一致,很少有研究使用后续伤病模型。对后续伤病风险的了解有限,这可能会影响伤病预防策略的制定。
CRD42019119264。