4.3 Review

Sex-Based Differences in the Incidence of Sports-Related Concussion: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal

SPORTS HEALTH-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages 486-491

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1941738119877186

Keywords

concussion; incidence; soccer; basketball; sex-based differences

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: The incidence of sports-related concussion in females has been increasing in recent years. Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis on sex-based differences in concussion incidence in various sports and to determine the effects of study design (retrospective vs prospective), setting (competition vs practice), and population (university and above vs high school and below) via a meta-regression. Data Sources: PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2018. Study Selection: Studies reporting sports-related concussion incidence data for both males and females (age >= 10 years) were included. Study Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Methods: The rate ratio was calculated as the concussion rate in females/males. Data were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Results: Thirty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Soccer and basketball demonstrated significantly higher incidence of concussions in females compared with males (rate ratio [95% CI], 1.76 [1.43-2.16] and 1.99 [1.56-2.54], respectively; P < 0.01). Sex-based differences in concussion incidence rates for baseball/softball, ice hockey, lacrosse, swimming/diving, and track and field were not statistically significant. In the meta-regression analysis, there were no significant effects on the rate ratio when evaluating study design, setting, and population. Conclusion: Concussion incidence rates were significantly higher in females than in males for soccer and basketball.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available