ArticlePDF Available

Consensus Statement on Injury Definitions and Data Collection Procedures in Studies of Football (Soccer) Injuries

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Variations in definitions and methodologies have created differences in the results and conclusions obtained from studies of football (soccer) injuries; this has made interstudy comparisons difficult. An Injury Consensus Group was established under the auspices of Fédération Internationale de Football Association Medical Assessment and Research Centre. Using a nominal group consensus model approach, a working document that identified the key issues related to definitions, methodology, and implementation was discussed by members of the group during a 2-day meeting. After this meeting, iterative draft statements were prepared and circulated to the members of the group for comment before the final consensus statement was produced. Definitions of injury, recurrent injury, severity, and training and match exposures in football, together with criteria for classifying injuries in terms of location, type, diagnosis, and causation are proposed. Proforma for recording players' baseline information, injuries, and training and match exposures are presented. Recommendations are made on how the incidence of match and training injuries should be reported and a checklist of issues and information that should be included in published reports of studies of football injuries is presented. The definitions and methodology proposed in the consensus statement will ensure that consistent and comparable results will be obtained from studies of football injuries.
Content may be subject to copyright.
doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.025270
2006;40;193-201 Br. J. Sports Med.
McCrory and W H Meeuwisse
C W Fuller, J Ekstrand, A Junge, T E Andersen, R Bahr, J Dvorak, M Hägglund, P
injuries
collection procedures in studies of football (soccer)
Consensus statement on injury definitions and data
http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/40/3/193
Updated information and services can be found at:
These include:
References
http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/40/3/193#BIBL
This article cites 14 articles, 5 of which can be accessed free at:
Rapid responses http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletter-submit/40/3/193
You can respond to this article at:
service
Email alerting top right corner of the article
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the
Topic collections
(1172 articles) Sports Medicine (439 articles) Other evidence based practice (695 articles) Injury
Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections
Notes
http://www.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprintform
To order reprints of this article go to:
http://www.bmjjournals.com/subscriptions/ go to: British Journal of Sports MedicineTo subscribe to
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
REVIEW
Consensus statement on injury definitions and data
collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries
C W Fuller, J Ekstrand, A Junge, T E Andersen, R Bahr, J Dvorak, M Ha¨gglund, P McCrory,
W H Meeuwisse
...............................................................................................................................
Br J Sports Med 2006;40:193–201. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2005.025270
Variations in definitions and methodologies have created
differences in the results and conclusions obtained from
studies of football (soccer) injuries, making interstudy
comparisons difficult. Therefore an Injury Consensus Group
was established under the auspices of Fe´de´ration
Internationale de Football Association Medical Assessment
and Research Centre. A nominal group consensus model
approach was used. A working document on definitions,
methodology, and implementation was discussed by the
group. Iterative draft statements were prepared and
circulated to members of the group for comment before the
final consensus statement was produced. Definitions of injury,
recurrent injury, severity, and training and match exposures
in football together with criteria for classifying injuries in terms
of location, type, diagnosis, and causation are proposed.
Proforma for recording players’ baseline information,
injuries, and training and match exposures are presented.
Recommendations are made on how the incidence of match
andtraininginjuriesshouldbereportedandachecklistof
issues and information that should be included in published
reports of studies of football injuries is presented.
...........................................................................
See end of article for
authors’ affiliations
.......................
Correspondence to:
Dr Fuller, Centre for Sports
Medicine, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham
NG7 2UH, UK; colin.
fuller@nottingham.ac.uk
Accepted
15 December 2005
.......................
It has been well documented that variations in
definitions and methodologies create signifi-
cant differences in the results and conclusions
obtained from studies of sports injuries.
1–11
Medical journals have developed strategies, such
as the CONSORT statement
12
for randomised
controlled trials, to address these problems and
to improve the quality of published studies.
However, despite continuing calls for common
methodologies to be adopted, fundamental dif-
ferences in definitions and implementation
strategies have persisted in published studies of
football injuries. This consensus statement aims
to establish definitions and methodology, imple-
mentation, and reporting standards that should
be adopted for studies of injuries in football and
to provide the basis for studies of injuries in
other team sports.
METHOD
After informal discussions during the 1st World
Congress on Sports Injury Prevention in Oslo in
June 2005, the Fe´de´ration Internationale de
Football Association Medical Assessment and
Research Centre (F-MARC) agreed to host an
Injury Consensus Group comprising a range of
experts involved in the study of football injuries.
A nominal group consensus model approach
13
was adopted for producing a consensus state-
ment on definitions and methodological issues
related to studies of football injuries. A working
document identifying key issues associated with
data collection and reporting in surveillance, risk
factor, and intervention studies was produced to
structure discussions at a two day meeting in
Zurich. After this meeting, iterative draft con-
sensus statements were prepared and circulated
to members of the group for comment before this
final statement was produced.
DEFINITIONS
Injury
An injury is defined as:
Any physical complaint sustained by a player
that results from a football match or football
training, irrespective of the need for medical
attention or time loss from football activities.
An injury that results in a player receiving
medical attention is referred to as a ‘‘medical
attention’’ injury, and an injury that results in
a player being unable to take a full part in
future football training or match play as a
‘‘time loss’’ injury.
Medicalattention’referstoanassessmentofa
player’s medical condition by a qualified medical
practitioner. ‘‘A player being unable to take a full
part in future football training or match play’’ is
independent of whether a training session actually
takes place on the day after the injury or whether a
player is selected to play in the next match. The
term ‘‘future’’ refers to any time after the onset of
injury, including the day of injury. It is important
to recognise that variations in medical support and
practiceandinanindividualplayerstoleranceto
pain may create differences in the incidence of
injury reported in studies. Multiple injuries sus-
tained by a player in a single event should be
recorded as one injury with multiple diagnoses.
Injuries that are unrelated to football competition
or training should not be recorded in studies of
football injuries. Players may also experience
problems other than physical complaints, such as
illnesses, diseases, and mental complaints, and it
may be appropriate in specific studies to record
these problems; however, their incidence should be
reported separately from the incidence of physical
complaints.
193
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
Recurrent injury
A recurrent injury is defined as:
An injury of the same type and at the same site as an index
injury and which occurs after a player’s return to full
participation from the index injury. A recurrent injury
occurring within two months of a player’s return to full
participation is referred to as an ‘‘early recurrence’’, one
occurring 2–12 months after a player’s return to full
participation as a ‘‘late recurrence’’, and one occurring
more than 12 months after a player’s return to full
participation as a ‘‘delayed recurrence’’.
It is essential to adopt the same recording regimen for
recurrent injuries as that adopted for index injuries—that is,
‘‘all’’, ‘‘medical attention’’, or ‘‘time loss’’ injuries—because the
recording regimen affects thereported incidences of both index
and recurrent injuries. When recurrent injuries are recorded,
the site of the injury, such as the specific muscle or ligament,
rather than the general location of the injury, such as the thigh
or knee, should be considered. Index injuries sustained before
the start of a study should also be considered when identifying
an injury as a recurrence. Injuries such as contusions,
lacerations, and concussions and sequelae resulting from an
index injury should not be recorded as recurrences. Recall bias
6
is less likely to affect the recording of early recurrent injuries
than it is for late and delayed recurrent injuries because of the
shorter time period between the two injuries.
Injury severity
Injury severity is defined as:
The number of days that have elapsed from the date of
injury to the date of the player’s return to full participation
in team training and availability for match selection.
The day on which an injury occurs is day zero and is not
counted when determining the severity of an injury.
Therefore, if a player cannot participate fully on the day of
an injury but is available for full participation the next day,
the incident should be recorded as a time loss injury with a
severity of zero days. If an injured player leaves a study or a
study finishes before a player’s injury has resolved, the
attending clinician should estimate the total number of days
that would have elapsed before the player returned to full
participation if the player had remained in the study or the
study had continued. If a player retires from play as a direct
consequence of an injury sustained during a study before
returning to full participation, the injury should be reported
separately as a ‘‘career ending injury’’. Occasionally, an injury
may have multiple diagnoses; in these cases, it is important
to distinguish between the overall severity of the injury event
and the severities of the individual diagnoses. The purpose of
some studies may dictate that injury outcome measures other
than days of absence, such as individual or team perfor-
mances, costs associated with rehabilitation, insured and
uninsured costs, or the long term impact on a player’s quality
of life, should be recorded.
Match exposure
Match exposure is defined as:
Play between teams from different clubs.
Match exposure between teams from the same club should
be regarded as training exposure. Any match activity that
forms a part of a player’s rehabilitation from injury should
not be recorded as match exposure.
Training exposure
Training exposure is defined as:
Team based and individual physical activities under the
control or guidance of the team’s coaching or fitness staff
that are aimed at maintaining or improving players’
football skills or physical condition.
Pre-match warm up and post-match cool down sessions
should be recorded as training exposure. Motivational team
talks, classroom discussions about tactics, and sessions with
sports psychologists, nutritionists, etc should not be recorded
as training exposure. Personal training activities undertaken
by players away from their team and which are not planned
by the team’s coaching or fitness staff should not be recorded
as training exposure. Any training activity forming a part of a
player’s rehabilitation from injury should not be recorded as
training exposure.
Methodological issues
Studies should be of a prospective, cohort design to minimise
the occurrence of errors associated with recall, which is a
problem with retrospective study designs. Cohort studies that
record players’ exposures enable relations between the
incidence of injury and risk factors in the study population
to be explored.
Interpretation of injury definition
Most studies will record medical attention and/or time loss
injuries. Table 1 presents examples of how specific incidents
should be recorded under these recording regimens.
Injury classification
Injuries should be classified by location, type, body side, and
mechanism of injury (traumatic or overuse) and whether the
injury was a recurrence. In this context, a traumatic injury
refers to an injury resulting from a specific, identifiable event,
and an overuse injury to one caused by repeated micro-
trauma without a single, identifiable event responsible for the
injury. In some studies, diagnoses of injuries may be
required; in these cases, a qualified medical practitioner
should provide a specific written diagnosis or use a sport
specific injury coding system, such as the Orchard
14
system.
Location of injury
The location of injuries should be recorded using the
categories listed in table 2. The location of injuries should
be recorded using the individual categories indicated but
where the number of injuries in a study is small, it may be
necessary to combine individual location categories into the
main groupings for analysis purposes.
Type of injury
The type of injury should be recorded using the categories
listed in table 3. The type of injuries should be recorded using
the individual categories indicated, but where the number of
injuries in a study is small, it may be necessary to combine
individual type categories into the main groupings for
analysis purposes. If the purpose of a study is to investigate
other problems, such as illnesses, diseases, or mental
complaints, these should be recorded under separate head-
ings from those listed in table 3.
Other injury classification issues
Injuries should also be classified as to whether they occurred
during a match or training session and whether they were the
result of contact with another player or other object. It may
also be appropriate to record whether the action causing the
injury was a violation of the laws of football.
194 Fuller, Ekstrand, Junge, et al
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
Study population
The study population should normally consist of more than
one team of players and the study should last for a minimum
period of one season (including preseason), 12 months, or the
duration of a tournament. Players joining/leaving the cohort—
for example, through transfer into/out of a team—should be
included/excluded from the date of joining/leaving. Injuries
and exposures should be documented for every player within
the cohort throughout the study period. Players who have an
existing injury at the start of a study should not be excluded
from the study, but their existing injuries should not be
included as part of the study. For intervention and risk factor
studies and for studieswhere the objective is to compare injury
rates between groups, power calculations should be used to
determine the population size required to identify significant
differences in the effects being investigated.
15
Implementation issues
Standardised data collection forms, which can be in electro-
nic or paper format, should be used consistently throughout a
study. Table 4 presents an overview of the forms that are
normally required for a study of injuries in football.
Player’s baseline information form
The exact nature of the baseline information required will
depend on the purpose of the study; however, for surveillance
studies, basic information,such as the player’s age, sex, playing
Table 2 Main groupings and categories for classifying injury location
Main grouping Category
Equivalent
OSICS body
area character
Head and neck Head/face H
Neck/cervical spine N
Upper limbs Shoulder/clavicula S
Upper arm U
Elbow E
Forearm R
Wrist W
Hand/finger/thumb P
Trunk Sternum/ribs/upper back C, D
Abdomen O
Lower back/pelvis/sacrum B, L
Lower limbs Hip/groin G
Thigh T
Knee K
Lower leg/Achilles tendon Q, A
Ankle A
Foot/toe F
OSICS, Orchard sports injury classification system.
14
Table 1 Examples of how to record injuries under different recording regimens
Example
Injury recording regimen
Medical attention Time loss
1. A defender sustained a hamstring injury during a match that required
30 days of rehabilitation before he could return to full training. The player
sustained another hamstring injury to the same muscle (same leg) 3 weeks
later and required a further 50 days of rehabilitation before he could return
to full training.
First incident should be recorded
as an injury (severity: 30 days);
second incident as a recurrence
(severity: 50 days).
First incident should be recorded as an
injury (severity: 30 days); second
incident as a recurrence (severity:
50 days).
2. A goalkeeper developed shoulder instability and sought medical attention;
the condition did not prevent him from taking a full part in team training or
competition even though it caused him some pain. The team physiotherapist
recommended an individual training programme for the goalkeeper to avoid
aggravating the condition.
Episode should be recorded as
an injury (severity: 0 days).
Episode should not be recorded as
long as he remained able to take a full
part in team training.
3. A defender sustained a groin injury, which the team doctor decided did
not warrant immediate treatment; the player continued to take a full part in
team training and competition. The player underwent elective surgery
2 months later and required 90 days rehabilitation.
Incident should be recorded as an
injury (severity: 0 days); when the
player underwent elective surgery,
the severity should be reclassified
to 90 days.
Incident should be recorded as an
injury at the time of the player’s elective
surgery (severity: 90 days).
4. A defender suffered groin pain that did not result in time loss; this
incident was followed by a 1 month pain-free period; he then suffered a
further period of groin pain, which prevented him from training and which
required 21 days of rehabilitation.
First episode should be recorded
as an injury (severity: 0 days);
second episode should be recorded
as a recurrence (severity: 21 days).
First episode should not be recorded;
second episode should be recorded as
an injury (severity: 21 days).
5. A forward sustained an ankle sprain during a match but continued to
play; he received medical attention after the match. He completed full team
training using ankle taping (with some pain) for 6 days but aggravated the
injury during the next match; he then required 15 days of rehabilitation.
First incident should be recorded
as an injury (severity: 0 days) and
when the second incident occurred
the severity of the index injury
should be reclassified to 15 days.
First incident should not be recorded
and the second incident should be
recorded as an injury (15 days).
6. A midfield player sustained a laceration to the face during a morning
training session; the doctor sutured the cut but the player missed the
afternoon training session. The player was able to take a full part in training
on the following day.
Incident should be recorded as an
injury (severity: 0 days).
Incident should be recorded as an
injury (severity: 0 days).
Consensus on methods for studies of football injuries 195
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
position, stature, and body mass should be recorded, as these
parameters define the study population. For other studies, such
as interventions and investigations of relations between risk
factors and the incidence of injury, more detailed baseline
information may be required. Appendix A provides an example
of a form for collecting a player’s baseline information.
Injury form
The injury form should include the team’s and player’s study
reference numbers, date of injury, whether the injury was
sustained during a match or training exposure, description of
the circumstances surrounding the injury, and the date of the
player’s return to full participation. The nature of the injury
(location, type, side injured, recurrence) and the main
mechanism (traumatic or overuse) should also be recorded.
One free text section should be provided to enable a specific
injury diagnosis or an injury classification code to be
recorded. A second free text section may be required for
some studies if additional study specific information is
required. Injury report forms should be completed as soon
as possible after the injury was sustained to avoid inaccura-
cies associated with recording information retrospectively.
However, injury information should be revised/updated if
further information is obtained at a later date—for example,
from diagnostic tests. Appendix B provides an example of a
form for recording injury information.
Match and training exposure form
The form should record the date, type, and duration (minutes)
of each exposure. Exposures can either be collected on an
individual player basis or for a group of players. Collecting
individual player exposures, especially for training sessions, is
very time consuming, and this level of detail should only be
recorded if the information is specifically required to meet the
aims of the study. However, for studies where players are
exposed in a range of situations, such as club and country, or
where the intention is to investigate relations between the
incidence of injuries and individual risk factors, the actual
exposure times for each player must be recorded. If data are
collected on a group basis, the number of matches and training
sessions, duration of each training session, and number of
players attending each training session must be recorded.
Training exposure data should preferably be collected for each
training session, but, as a minimum, the information should be
collected on a weekly basis. It may also be appropriate,
depending on the purpose of the study, to record other variables,
suchastheplayingsurfaceortypeoftrainingundertaken.
For studies recording team match exposure, the total player-
match exposure time in hours for a team is given by
(N
M
P
M
D
M
)/60 where N
M
is the number of team matches
played, P
M
is the number of players in the team (normally 11),
and D
M
is the duration of the match in minutes (normally 90).
Collecting match exposure data on a team basis rather than for
individual players does not take into account exposure time
lost because players are temporarily or permanently absent
during a match through, for example, treatment or receipt of a
red card. For studies recording team training exposure, the
total training exposure time in hours is given by the sum of the
values for (P
T
D
T
)/60 for every training session throughout the
study, where P
T
is the number of players attending a training
session and D
T
is the duration of the training session in
minutes. Collecting team based training data rather than
individual data does not take into account training exposure
time lost when a player does not complete a full training
session. Appendix C provides an example of a form for
collecting match and training exposures for individual players,
and appendix D provides an example for collecting team
training and match exposures.
Table 3 Main groupings and categories for classifying type of injury
Main grouping Category
Equivalent OSICS
pathology character
Fractures and bone stress Fracture F
Other bone injuries G, Q, S
Joint (non-bone) and
ligament
Dislocation/subluxation
Sprain/ligament injury
D, U
J, L
Lesion of meniscus or cartilage C
Muscle and tendon Muscle rupture/tear/strain/cramps M, Y
Tendon injury/rupture/tendinosis/bursitis T, R
Contusions Haematoma/contusion/bruise H
Laceration and skin lesion Abrasion K
Laceration K
Central/peripheral nervous
system
Concussion (with or without loss of consciousness)
Nerve injury
N
N
Other Dental injuries G
Other injuries
OSICS, Orchard sports injury classification system.
14
Table 4 Standard forms required for a study of injuries in football
Form Information required
Who should provide the
information?
When should the information
be provided?
Player’s baseline
information
Player’s characteristics Each player When a player enters the study
Injury report Classification and
circumstances of injury
Medical professionals After each recordable injury
Match and training
exposure
Player’s match and training
exposure time
Coaches Every match and training
session
196 Fuller, Ekstrand, Junge, et al
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
Other implementation issues
The purpose and setting of individual studies determine
whether all, medical attention, or time loss injuries are
recorded. Whichever injury recording regimen is adopted, it
is essential that it is used consistently for all aspects of the
study. Although collecting information on injuries without
time loss may be important for investigating wider health
issues, it must be recognised that this injury recording regimen
places higher time demands on the medical personnel involved
with the study. Although the exact format of the documenta-
tion required will depend on the specific aims and objectives of
a study, the forms presented in appendices A–D provide a
format for collecting the minimum amount of information
that would normally be required. When new procedures are
implemented, they should always be subjected to a pilot study
before the main investigation is started.
The format and content of each study should be approved
by and follow the protocols defined by an appropriate
institutional ethics committee. Players should be assigned
individual reference codes that are known only to the
personnel recording information in order to maintain players’
confidentiality when the data are analysed. Players taking
part in a study should have the purpose and format of the
study explained to them using face to face presentations or a
detailed information sheet. Individual players must always
retain the right not to take part and to withdraw from a study
at any time. To maximise the level of compliance, a number
of supporting initiatives can be implemented, such as
providing written instructions for all personnel completing
the forms and providing examples of completed forms. It is
beneficial to identify a recognised contact person at each
team, who does not have to be the person completing the
forms. Regular contact should be maintained with each team,
and feedback should be provided at appropriate points in
time throughout the study.
REPORTING DATA
The cohort should be clearly defined by reporting the numbers
of participants and teams taking part at the beginning of the
study, the numbers of participants and teams dropping out and
joining during the study, together with the age range and sex of
the participants, the standard of play, and the duration of the
study. Numbers of injuries occurring during matches and
training should be reported separately, together with the
corresponding match and training exposures so that the
incidences of both match and training injuries can be
calculated. The incidence of injuries should normally be
reported as the number of injuries per 1000 player-hours; in
studies reporting the incidence of match injuries, it may also be
appropriate to report the number of injuries per match. Where
possible, the incidences of all, medical attention, and time loss
injuries should be reported separately, as this enables interstudy
comparisons of results. The incidence of injury expressed as a
function of total exposure time (match plus training) should
only be reported if the incidences of match and training injuries
are also reported separately. The incidence of injury should not
be reported as a function of athlete exposures because the
duration of individual exposures will vary. If the aim of a study
is to measure the incidence of injury associated with specific
training activities, then the incidence of training injuries should
be reported as a function of the players’ exposure to the specific
training activities, such as the number of injuries during weight
training per 1000 player-hours of weight training.
The average and median severity of injuries should be
reported in days together with the distribution of injuries
grouped according to their severity: slight (0 days); minimal
(1–3 days); mild (4–7 days); moderate (8–28 days); severe
(.28 days); career ending. The severity of injuries reported
will be influenced by the recording regimen adopted in a
study. The locations and types of injuries should be reported
as numbers and percentages for both match and training
Table 5 Checklist of issues that should be included in reports of studies of football injuries
Section Issues Reported on page
Title Identify the type and purpose of the study, for example, injury surveillance to measure or intervention to
reduce the incidence of injuries.
Abstract Present a structured summary of the study, including Aims, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.
Introduction Discuss background to and aims, objectives, and hypotheses for the study.
Methods Design of study, for example, prospective cohort, randomised controlled trial.
Study population, including the organisational setting and geographic location, the numbers of players and
teams involved, age range and sex of participants, level of play, and the duration of the study.
Describe medical personnel involved and the frequency of recording injury and exposure data.
Definitions of injury and exposure used in study.
Planned interventions and the criteria used for selecting the intervention and control groups.
Primary and secondary outcome measures, such as the number of medical attention/time loss injuries,
cost of treatment, and the incidence and severity of injuries and recurrences.
Methods used to define the study size in risk factor and intervention studies, for example, power calculations.
Methods, such as training, used to improve the quality of data collection.
Statistical methods used to compare groups and subgroups.
Results Report for the study population and each subgroup assessed:
numbers of match and training injuries,
numbers of match and training recurrences,
match and training exposures.
Present with appropriate statistical information for the study population and each subgroup:
baseline data on the study population,
incidences of match and training injuries,
incidence of recurrences,
severities of match and training injuries,
distributions of injury locations and types for match and training,
cross tabulations of injury locations and types for match and training.
Present, together with inferential statistics, other summary data that are appropriate to the aims and objectives
of the study.
Discussion Interpretation of study results, taking into account the study aims, objectives, and hypotheses and the existing
evidence in the literature.
Comment on generalisations that can be reached from the study results.
Consensus on methods for studies of football injuries 197
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
injuries. It is also beneficial to cross tabulate the injury
locations (table 3) with the types of injury (table 4), as this
provides an understanding of the overall nature of the
injuries recorded in a study.
If the times of match injuries are recorded, the injuries
should be grouped into defined periods of the game (0–15, 16–
30, 31–45 (+injury time), 46–60, 61–75, 76–90 (+injury time)
minutes) and reported as percentages of injuries occurring in
each of these periods; injuries sustained during extra time
should be reported in a separate ‘‘extra time’’ period. Other
results reported will depend on the specific purpose of the study
but may include, for example, comparisons of the incidence
and severity of injuries within subgroups of the study
population, such as age, sex, skill level, or training programme.
In each case, the data should be presented to an equivalent
standard to the examples described above.
Finally, table 5 provides a checklist of issues that should be
included in reports of studies on football injuries. The checklist
is intended to describe the minimum information that should
be included in a report; the aims and objectives of specific
studies will dictate whether other information should also be
presented. In principle, reports of studies should include
sufficient information for readers to understand how a study
was performed, to judge the quality of the information
collected, and to assess the reliability of the findings presented.
Authors’ affiliations
.....................
C W Fuller, Centre for Sports Medicine, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK
J Ekstrand, M Ha¨ gglund, Department of Social Medicine and Public
Health Science, Linko¨ping University, Linko¨ping, Sweden
A Junge, J Dvorak, FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Centre,
Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland
T E Andersen, R Bahr, Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Oslo,
Norway
P McCrory, Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, University
of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
W H Meeuwisse, Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Competing interests: none declared
REFERENCES
1van Mechelen W, Hlobil H, Kemper HCG. Incidence, severity, aetiology and
prevention of sports injuries: a review of concepts. Sports Med
1992;14:82–99.
2Meeuwisse WH. Assessing causation in sport injury: a multifactorial model.
Clin J Sport Med 1994;4:166–70.
3Caine DJ, Caine CG, Lindner KJ. The epidemiologic approach to sports
injuries. In: Caine DJ, Caine CJ, Lindner KJ, eds. Epidemiology of sports
injuries. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996:1–13.
4de Loes M. Exposure data. Why are they needed?Sports Med
1997;24:172–5.
5Finch CF. An overview of some definitional issues for sports injury surveillance.
Sports Med 1997;24:157–63.
6Junge A, Dvorak J. Influence of definition and data collection on the incidence
of injuries in football. Am J Sports Med 2000;28:S40–6.
7Ekstrand J, Karlsson J. The risk for injury in football. There is a need for
consensus about definition of the injury and the design of studies. Scand J Med
Science Sports 2003;13:147–9.
8Fuller CW, Drawer SD. The application of risk management in sport. Sports
Med 2004;34:349–56.
9Junge A, Dvorak J, Graf-Baumann T, et al. Football injuries during FIFA
tournaments and the Olympic Games, 1998–2001. Am J Sports Med
2004;32:S80–9.
10 Ha¨gglund M, Walde´n M, Bahr R, et al. Methods for epidemiological study of
injuries to professional football players: developing the UEFA model. Br J Sports
Med 2005;39:340–6.
11 Brooks JHM, Fuller CW. The influence of methodological issues on the results
and conclusions from epidemiological studies of sports injuries: illustrative
examples. Sports Med 2006;36:in press.
12 Altman DG. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT
statement. BMJ 1996;313:570–1.
13 Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al. Consensus methods: characteristics and
guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984;74:979–83.
14 Orchard J. Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS). Sport Health
1995;11:39–41.
15 Bahr R, Holme I. Risk factors for sports injuries: a methodological approach.
Br J Sports Med 2003;37:384–92.
APPENDIX A
198 Fuller, Ekstrand, Junge, et al
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
APPENDIX B
Consensus on methods for studies of football injuries 199
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
APPENDIX C
200 Fuller, Ekstrand, Junge, et al
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
APPENDIX D
Consensus on methods for studies of football injuries 201
www.bjsportmed.com
on 28 February 2006 bjsm.bmjjournals.comDownloaded from
... An injury was defined as any physical complaint sustained by a player that resulted from a football match or football training, that made the player unable to participate in future football training or a match. 21 Illness, disease, and mental complaints were not considered as physical complaints, but were taken into account to calculate match and training exposure. Injury incidence was calculated as all injuries per 1000 hours of football (training + matches), injuries per 1000 hours of training, and injuries per 1000 hours of matches. ...
Purpose: To analyze the relationships between the recovery kinetics experienced by professional football players and noncontact injury. Methods: A cohort of 46 professional football players (age 24.2 [4.7] y) from the same team (French Ligue 1) was monitored each day between matches when the team played twice a week. The recovery monitoring procedure was implemented after 38 matches and included some questionnaires: duration of sleep, Hooper scale (quality of sleep, level of stress, fatigue, and muscle soreness), perceived recovery status scale, creatine kinase concentrations, a countermovement jump, and an isometric force test. Noncontact injuries were collected during these periods. Results: Noncontact injuries were associated with perceived fatigue and muscle soreness 2 days (relative risk [RR] = 1.89 and 1.48, respectively) and 3 days following the matches (RR = 2.08 and 2.08, respectively). An increase of sleep quantity during the 2 nights following a match was significantly associated with a lower RR (RR = 0.65), as well as a lower decrement score on the isometric force test on each of the 3 days after the matches (RR = 0.97, RR = 0.99, and RR = 0.97, respectively). No other association was reported for the variables sleep quality, stress, perceived recovery, creatine kinase concentrations, countermovement jump, and noncontact injuries. Conclusion: During a congested schedule, implementing a recovery monitoring protocol including questionnaires about fatigue, muscle soreness, quantity of sleep, and a physical test of isometric force could help practitioners prevent injuries.
... All injuries that prevented the player from participating in all training activities normally scheduled for that day were recorded, preventing participation for a period exceeding 24 hours. The current definition reflects that used by Fuller et al., (Fuller et al., 2006) which conforms to the definitions of consensual time-loss injuries proposed for team sports players. All injuries were classified as low severity (resulting in a training modification or 1-3 missed training sessions); moderate severity (when a player was not available during 1-2 weeks of training); or high severity (where a player missed 3+ weeks of training). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: It has been hypothesized that sports injury risk is explained by muscle metabolism. The objective was to evaluate the muscle oxygen saturation slopes (ΔSmO2 slopes) and muscle oxygenation asymmetry (MO2Asy) at rest and to study their associations with injuries during the pre-season. Methods: A total of 16 male and 10 female footballers participated in this study. Injuries were diagnosed and classified by level of severity during the pre-season. The workload was also evaluated using the rate of perceived exertion × training time, from which the accumulated loads. The SmO2 was measured at rest in the gastrocnemius muscle using the arterial occlusion method in the dominant and non-dominant legs. The repeated measures ANOVA, relative risk, and binary logistic regression were applied to assess the probability of injury with SmO2 and workload. Results: Higher MO2Asy and ΔSmO2 Slope 2 were found among footballer who suffered high-severity injuries and those who presented no injuries. In addition, an MO2Asy greater than 15% and an increase in accumulated load were variables that explained a greater probability of injury. Conclusion: This study presents the new concept of muscle oxygenation asymmetry in sports science and its possible application in injury prevention through the measurement of SmO2 at rest.
... 10 Acute injuries are caused by a specific identifiable event like a fall, whereas overuse injuries result from multiple micro traumata, where no triggering event can be named. 11 In general, climbing is considered a relatively safe sport and the risk of injury is lower than with other popular sports like basketball or soccer. 12 A study on the risk of injuries and fatalities found that incidences are greater for alpine and ice climbing, as the risks are more objective and external than for sport climbing, indoor climbing and bouldering. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives Outdoor rock climbing has become popular in recent years. However, few data have been published on climbing accidents in Switzerland, even though the Swiss Alps are a major climbing resort. To analyse data on accidents related to outdoor climbing treated in the Emergency Department (ED) of University Hospital Bern, Switzerland. Methods A retrospective database search for accidents related to outdoor climbing was conducted in the clinical reporting system E.care of the ED of University Hospital Bern for the period April 2012–December 2018. Results 78 patients were treated after an accident related to outdoor climbing, which accounted for 1 per 3571 (0.028%) of all ED visits during this period. Mean age was 35.8±10.4 years. 76% of patients were male. Falls were the most common mechanism of injury (64%), followed by rock or ice falling on the climber (21%). Injuries affected multiple body regions (38%) or only the lower limbs (22%). Most injuries were fractures (68%). Mean ISS was 7.5 (1–38), and grade 3 UIAA MedCom injuries were most common (45%). 11 cases of polytrauma occurred and one fatality. 44 patients needed inpatient admission. Mean duration of inpatient stay was 7 days. Mean costs per patient were 12 283 CHF. Conclusions Accidents related to outdoor climbing accounted for a small number of patients seen in the University ED Bern. Further research should be on a nationwide basis, with collection of specific climbing data like use of a helmet and experience of climbing to inform injury prevention strategies. This should shed further light on this topic, as would a prospective study using the International Alpine Trauma Register.
Article
Aim: Since sports injuries not only negatively affect the physical health and integrity of the athlete, but also negatively affect the psychological state, it is an issue that should be emphasized. There are findings in the literature that athletes who experience sports injuries mostly experience anger, depression, anxiety, lack of self-confidence and fear of re-injury. It is thought that the experience of the athlete in the post-injury treatment process may also affect his return to sports and his performance. For this reason, the aim of the research is to examine in depth how the athletes who experience sports injuries experience the process and their psychological states while their treatment continues. Methods: In this study, document analysis, which is a part of the phenomenological design, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was used. The sample of the study consists of 10 athletes who were students of a State University in the 2021-2022 academic year, which was determined by easily accessible situation sampling, and who had serious sports injuries and whose treatment continues. In order to interpret the experiences of the athletes during the post-injury treatment process, the analysis of the diaries recorded by them was used. Inductive document analysis was used to analyze the logs. Results: As a result of the document analysis, six themes were reached from the experiences of the athletes who had serious sports injuries, such as blaming, impatience, perceiving the injury as serious, fear that performance would be affected, pressure to return to training, and self-impact. Conclusions: The results of the study revealed that medical treatment alone is not sufficient for athletes who have suffered serious sports injuries to return to active sports, and psychological support is also required. At this point, it is recommended that the athletes in the medical treatment process who have serious sports injuries should be supported by their coaches, friends and families, taking into account the themes obtained in our study, as well as encouraging them to receive psychological support.
Article
Purpose To study the epidemiology and return to play characteristics of anterior and posterior ankle impingement syndromes (AAIS and PAIS) over 18 consecutive seasons in male professional soccer players. Methods Between the 2001–2002 and 2018–2019 seasons, 120 European soccer teams were followed prospectively for various seasons. Time loss injuries and player exposures were recorded individually in 6754 unique players. Injury incidence and burden were reported as the number of injuries and days absence per 1000 h with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Injury severity was reported as median absence in days with the interquartile range (IQR). Results Out of 25,462 reported injuries, 93 (0.4%) were diagnosed as AAIS (38%) or PAIS (62%) in 77 players. AAIS and PAIS were similar regarding injury characteristics except for a greater proportion of AAIS having a gradual onset (69% vs.47%; P = 0.03) and being re-injuries (31% vs. 9%; P = 0.01). Impingement syndromes resulted in an overall incidence of 0.03 injuries (95% CI 0.02–0.03) per 1000 h and an injury burden of 0.4 absence days per 1000 h. PAIS incidence was significantly higher than that for AAIS [0.02 (95% CI 0.002–0.03) vs. 0.01 (95% CI 0.005–0.01) injuries per 1000 h (RR = 1.7). The absence was significantly longer in AAIS than in PAIS [10 (22) vs. 6 (11) days; P = 0.023]. Impingement syndromes that presented with a gradual onset had longer absences in comparison to impingement with an acute onset [8 (22) vs. 5 (11) days; P = 0.014]. Match play was associated with a higher incidence and greater injury burden than training: 0.08 vs. 0.02 injuries per 1000 h (RR 4.7), respectively, and 0.9 vs. 0.3 days absence per 1000 h (RR 2.5). Conclusion Ankle injuries are frequent in men’s professional soccer and ankle impingement is increasingly recognized as a common source of pain, limited range of motion, and potential time loss. In our study, ankle impingement was the cause of time loss in less than 0.5% of all injuries. PAIS was more frequently reported than AAIS, but AAIS was associated with more absence days and a higher re-injury rate than PAIS. The findings in this study can assist the physician in best practice management on ankle impingment syndromes in professional football. Level of evidence II.
Article
La Incidencia Lesional (IL) se define como el número de lesiones por 1.000 horas de exposición. El objetivo fue determinar la IL y los posibles factores que pudieran tener alguna influencia en las lesiones en los jugadores de la selección española de fútbol masculina absoluta de 2008 a 2015. Durante este periodo se convocaron 85 jugadores. El tiempo de exposición fue de 10.450 horas de las que 8.800 correspondían a entrenamiento y 1.650 horas a competición. El IL fue 7,46 lesiones por 1.000 horas de exposición correspondiendo el 76,9% a partidos de competición y el resto a entrenamientos. Las lesiones musculares fueron las más frecuentes (52,4%). La severidad de la lesión estaba relacionada con la posición del jugador y con el mecanismo lesional. En conclusión, la selección española absoluta de fútbol presentó un IL en la media de otros equipos de la élite del fútbol mundial.
Article
Introduction: Adolescent elite athletes have a high injury risk and many risk factors for injury have been suggested, where the most conclusive risk factor is a previous injury. However, there is a lack of longitudinal data on a complete season in adolescent elite athletes. Objectives: The aim of the study was to explore the relationship between substantial injuries and previous injuries in adolescent elite athletes. A secondary aim was to explore sex differences in terms of this relationship. Methods: Injury problems and substantial injury was monitored in adolescent elite athletes (n = 320) using the validated the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Questionnaire over 52 weeks. Results: In total, 74% (n = 237) athletes reported at least one substantial injury during the study period. Previous injury problems were reported by 82% (n = 195), where 48% (n = 183) of all substantial injuries occurred within the same body location as a previous injury. Forty-four percent (n = 83) of the substantial injuries occurred within 2 weeks after occurrence of an injury problem. There was no association between sex and number of substantial injuries (p = .956, χ2 = 1.7). Poisson regression analysis demonstrated that 16-year-old athletes had a significantly (p = .034) increased risk of reporting substantial injuries (IRR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.01-1.39), compared to 18-year-old athletes. A high prevalence of substantial injuries occurred closely followed a previous injury in the same body location. Conclusion: Exploring rehabilitation following injuries in this age, addressing injury risk behavior when an injury problem has occurred and increasing awareness of the relationship between injury problems and substantial injuries are suggested to be important strategies to reduce substantial injuries in adolescent elite athletes.
Article
Full-text available
Background Little is known about the association between physical fitness and the risk of injury or illness in ice hockey. The least-fit players may be more prone to injury and illness. Purpose To examine the association between preseason fitness level and injury or illness risk among elite ice hockey players during the regular season. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods A total of 133 male ice hockey players in the GET League (the premier professional league in Norway) completed 8 different exercises (40-m sprint, countermovement jump, 3000-m run, squat, bench press, chin-ups, brutal bench, and box jump) at the annual 1-day preseason testing combine. During the 2017-2018 competitive season, the players reported all health problems (acute injuries, overuse injuries, and illnesses) weekly (31 weeks) using the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center Questionnaire on Health Problems. Results Overall, the players reported 191 acute injuries, 82 overuse injuries, and 132 illnesses. The least-fit tercile of players did not report more health problems (mean, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.2-3.8) compared with the most-fit (mean, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.6-4.2) or the medium-fit (mean, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.5) players. The most-fit players reported more substantial health problems (mean, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.5) compared with the medium-fit (mean, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8 -1.8) and least-fit (mean, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3) ( P = .02) players. There was no association between low physical fitness and number of health problems when comparing the least-fit tercile of the players with the rest of the cohort ( P > .05); however, there was an association between low physical fitness and greater severity of all health problems when comparing the least-fit tercile of players to the rest of the cohort after adjusting for time on ice per game, playing position, and age ( P = .02). Conclusion Low physical fitness was not associated with increased rate of injury or illness but was associated with greater severity of all health problems after adjusting for time on ice per game, playing position, and age.
Article
Full-text available
Consensus methods are being used increasingly to solve problems in medicine and health. Their main purpose is to define levels of agreement on controversial subjects. Advocates suggest that, when properly employed, consensus strategies can create structured environments in which experts are given the best available information, allowing their solutions to problems to be more justifiable and credible than otherwise. This paper surveys the characteristics of several major methods (Delphi, Nominal Group, and models developed by the National Institutes of Health and Glaser) and provides guidelines for those who want to use the techniques. Among the concerns these guidelines address are selecting problems, choosing members for consensus panels, specifying acceptable levels of agreement, properly using empirical data, obtaining professional and political support, and disseminating results.
Article
Aspects of different approaches to study design in the epidemiology of sports injuries are presented, identifying 4 major types: (i) the clinical case series; (ii) the community-based survey; (iii) studies on specific sports or diagnoses without exposure data; and (iv) studies on specific sports or diagnoses with exposure data. The advantages and disadvantages of these concepts are discussed. It is concluded that to optimise preventive efforts and improve the comparability of studies in sports injury epidemiology, there is not only a need for consensus on definitional issues, but also for an agreement on the methodology. Attention to exposure issues is a crucial component of this.
Article
Background Standardized assessment of sports injuries provides not only important epidemiological information, but also directions for injury prevention, and the opportunity for monitoring long-term changes in the frequency and characteristics of injury. Purpose Development and implementation of an easy to use injury-reporting system to analyze the incidence, circumstances and characteristics of injury during major international football tournaments. Study Design Prospective survey. Methods A comprehensive injury report form was developed, and implemented during 12 international football tournaments. The physicians of all participating teams were asked to report all injuries after each match. The response rate was 84% on average. Results A total of 901 injuries were reported from 334 matches, which is equivalent to an incidence of 2.7 injuries per match. Approximately one injury per match resulted in a player's absence from training or matches. On average 86% of the injuries arose as a result of contact with another player, and approximately half of all injuries were caused by foul play. The number of injuries per match differed substantially between the tournaments for players of different age, sex and skill-level. Conclusion An injury-reporting system has been implemented as matter of routine in FIFA tournaments. The consistent findings in the present study demonstrate the high quality of the data obtained.
Article
This article outlines principles relating to the assessment of risk factors and causation in sport injury. The limitations of a univariate exploration of risk factors are outlined, and a new model that permits the assessment of multiple risk factors is proposed. Applying this multivariate model may lead to greater success in predicting athletic injuries and help guide effective prevention strategies. (C) Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
Article
Notwithstanding the healthy influence of sporting activities on risk factors, in particular those of cardiovascular disease, it is becoming increasingly apparent that sports can present a danger to health in the form of sports injuries. The extent of the sports injury problem calls for preventative action based on the results of epidemiological research. For the interpretation of these facts uniform definitions are needed and limitations of research designs should be known. Measures to prevent sports injuries form part of what is called the ‘sequence of prevention’. Firstly the extent of the sports injury problem must be identified and described. Secondly the factors and mechanisms which play a part in the occurrence of sports injuries have to be identified. The third step is to introduce measures that are likely to reduce the future risk and/or severity of sports injuries. This measure should be based on the aetiological factors and the mechanism as identified in the second step. Finally the effect of the measures must be evaluated by repeating the first step. In this review some aspects of the first and second step of the sequence of prevention are discussed. The extent of the sports injury problem is often described by injury incidence and by indicators of the severity of sports injuries. Sports injury incidence should preferably be expressed as the number of sports injuries per exposure time (e.g. per 1000 hours of sports participation) in order to facilitate the comparability of research results. However, one should realise that the outcome of research applying this definition of sports injury incidence is highly dependent on the definitions of ‘sports injury’ and ‘sports participation’. The outcome of such research also depends on the applied research design and research methodology. The incidence of sports injuries depends on: the method used to count injuries (e.g. prospective vs retrospective); the method used to establish the population at risk; and on the representativeness of the sample. Severity of sports injuries can be described on the basis of 6 criteria: the nature of the sports injury; the duration and nature of treatment; sporting time lost; working time lost; permanent damage; and cost. Here also uniform definitions are important and necessary in order to enhance the comparability of research data. In the second step of the ‘sequence of prevention’ the aetiological factors that play a role in the occurrence of a sports injury have to be identified by epidemiological studies. Epidemiological research on the aetiology of sports injuries requires a conceptual model. The most commonly applied model is a stress/capacity model in which internal (personal) and external (environmental) aetiological factors are identified. In this model stress and capacity must be in balance and preventative measures must be designed to achieve or maintain this balance. However, merely to establish the aetiological factors is not enough; the mechanism by which sports injuries occur must also be identified. Athletes are in constant interaction with their environment and aetiological factors must be approached from this point of view. In a second, more dynamic, conceptual model on the aetiology of sports injuries, the importance of the determinants of sports behaviour, as well as the interaction between the various aetiological factors, is discussed. Whether or not a sports injury results from sports behaviour largely depends on the extent to which ‘prevention’ is incorporated in the determinants of sports behaviour. The drawback of both conceptual models is the fact that neither of them incorporate a time perspective. They can therefore not be applied to research on the aetiology of overuse injuries. In this perspective the application of a stress/strain/capacity model can be useful. This is a more dynamic and time-based 3-phase sequential model in which behaviour, amongst other aetiological factors, plays an important role. In this model an athlete is seen as an active manipulator of stress by whom the amount of strain evoked by sports participation can be altered, thereby influencing the capacity to perform in a certain sports situation, but also influencing the risk to sustain a sports injury, either acute or long term. Finally, despite the importance of the model of choice in studying the aetiology of sports injuries one should realise that again the choice of research design influences the outcome of such research. Case series usually give no information on the underlying population at risk, so they are of no value in drawing valid conclusions on the risk factors of injuries. Only by relating the injuries to corresponding population denominators can one estimate injury rates and identify important risk factors and high risk sportspeople. As in research on sports injury incidence; research on risk factors should be undertaken on groups that are homogeneous with regard to age, sex, level of competition and type of sport.
Article
Randomised controlled trials are the best way to compare the effectiveness of different interventions. Only randomised trials allow valid inferences of cause and effect. Only randomised trials have the potential directly to affect patient care—occasionally as single trials but more often as the body of evidence from several trials, whether or not combined formally by meta-analysis. It is thus entirely reasonable to require higher standards for papers reporting randomised trials than those describing other types of study. Like all studies, randomised trials are open to bias if done badly.1 It is thus essential that randomised trials are done well and reported adequately. Readers should not have to infer what was probably done, they should be told explicitly. Proper methodology should be used and be seen to have been used. Yet reviews of published trials have consistently found major deficiencies in reporting,2 3 4 making the task …
Article
Aspects of different approaches to study design in the epidemiology of sports injuries are presented, identifying 4 major types: (i) the clinical case series; (ii) the community-based survey; (iii) studies on specific sports or diagnoses without exposure data; and (iv) studies on specific sports or diagnoses with exposure data. The advantages and disadvantages of these concepts are discussed. It is concluded that to optimise preventive efforts and improve the comparability of studies in sports injury epidemiology, there is not only a need for consensus on definitional issues, but also for an agreement on the methodology. Attention to exposure issues is a crucial component of this.