Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBitchell, Charlotte
dc.contributor.authorVarley-Campbell, Jo
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Gemma
dc.contributor.authorStiles, Victoria
dc.contributor.authorMathema, Prabhat
dc.contributor.authorMoore, Isabel
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-30T10:56:27Z
dc.date.available2021-04-30T10:56:27Z
dc.date.issued2020-12-03
dc.identifier.citationBitchell, C.L., Varley-Campbell, J., Robinson, G., Stiles, V., Mathema, P. and Moore, I.S. (2020) 'Recurrent and subsequent injuries in professional and elite sport: a systematic review', Sports Medicine-Open, 6(1), pp.1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00286-3en_US
dc.identifier.issn2198-9761
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10369/11378
dc.descriptionArticle published in Sports Medicine - Open available open access at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00286-3en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSports Medicine - Open;
dc.titleRecurrent and Subsequent Injuries in Professional and Elite Sport: a Systematic Reviewen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00286-3
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-11-24
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record