4.6 Review

Epidemiology of injuries in professional football: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 54, Issue 12, Pages 711-719

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099577

Keywords

injury; football; prevention

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte (FPU) from Spain
  2. Seneca Foundation (regional sub program focuses on the postdoctoral development) from Spain [20366/PD/17]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological data of injuries in professional male football. Method Forty-four studies have reported the incidence of injuries in football. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Studies were combined in a pooled analysis using a Poisson random effects regression model. Results The overall incidence of injuries in professional male football players was 8.1 injuries/1000 hours of exposure. Match injury incidence (36 injuries/1000 hours of exposure) was almost 10 times higher than training injury incidence rate (3.7 injuries/1000 hours of exposure). Lower extremity injuries had the highest incidence rates (6.8 injuries/1000 hours of exposure). The most common types of injuries were muscle/tendon (4.6 injuries/1000 hours of exposure), which were frequently associated with traumatic incidents. Minor injuries (1-3 days of time loss) were the most common. The incidence rate of injuries in the top 5 European professional leagues was not different to that of the professional leagues in other countries (6.8 vs 7.6 injuries/1000 hours of exposure, respectively). Conclusions Professional male football players have a substantial risk of sustaining injuries, especially during matches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available