Prevalence and Incidence of Injury during Olympic-style Shooting Events: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND

Shooting sports are included in collegiate and Olympic events. However, there is minimal evidence examining injury prevalence and incidence for these athletes.

HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to examine the available evidence regarding the incidence, prevalence, and types of injuries that affect athletes in Olympic-style shooting events.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus were searched utilizing terms related to shooting and injuries. Studies were included if they reported prevalence or incidence of injury in collegiate or Olympic shooting events, and were excluded if inclusion criteria were not met, full text was unavailable, or not in English. Two reviewers independently screened articles in two phases: 1) screening of titles/abstracts 2) full text review. A third reviewer resolved conflicts.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were ultimately included. The sports identified were biathlon, rifle, pistol, and shotgun. Shooting events in both winter and summer Olympics had low percentages of injuries compared to other sports. Winter shooting events had a higher percentage of injuries (6.9%) compared to summer (2.3%). In summer, females demonstrated a higher percentage of injuries (6.9%) compared to males (1.7%). In winter, males had a higher percentage of injuries (8.6%) versus females (5.1%).

CONCLUSION

Injury incidence and prevalence was low for athletes in shooting sports in the Olympics. Injury rate was higher in the winter Olympic shooting events likely from increased physiological demand. With injury surveillance focusing on acute injuries rather than chronic, the number of injuries may be underestimated. Females had higher injury rates than males in the summer Olympics while the opposite was observed in the winter Olympics, likely from sex differences and differences in physiological demand for each event.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.