4.3 Article

Epidemiology of Injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association Men's Basketball: 2014-2015 Through 2018-2019

Journal

JOURNAL OF ATHLETIC TRAINING
Volume 56, Issue 7, Pages 681-687

Publisher

NATL ATHLETIC TRAINERS ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-436-20

Keywords

collegiate; sport-related; surveillance

Categories

Funding

  1. NCAA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that common injury rates in men's basketball are trending downward relative to previous findings. The rate of ankle sprains initially increased and then decreased between the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.
Context: Basketball has remained a popular sport for players and spectators in the United States since before the first National Collegiate Athletic Association men's championship tournament in 1939. Background: Routine examinations of men's basketball injuries are important for identifying emerging temporal patterns. Methods: Exposure and injury data collected in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance Program during 2014-2015 through 2018-2019 athletic seasons were analyzed. Injury counts, rates, and proportions were used to describe injury characteristics, and injury rate ratios were used to examine differences in injury rates. Results: The overall injury rate was 7.28 per 1000 athlete exposures, with competition rates twice those of practices (injury rate ratio = 2.07; 95% CI = 1.93, 2.22). Injuries to the ankle (22.2%), knee (13.0%), head/face (11.3%), and hand/wrist (10.1%) accounted for most reported injuries, with sprains (30.4%), contusions (14.3%), and strains (13.9%) most commonly reported. Ankle sprain rates initially trended upward and decreased between 2017-2018 and 2018-2019; concussion rates remained relatively stable during 2014-2015 through 2018-2019. Conclusions: Findings suggest that common injury rates are trending downward relative to previous study findings.

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