4.3 Article

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

Journal

JOURNAL OF ATHLETIC TRAINING
Volume 56, Issue 7, Pages 629-635

Publisher

NATL ATHLETIC TRAINERS ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-394-20

Keywords

collegiate; sport-related; surveillance

Categories

Funding

  1. NCAA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The NCAA has sponsored men's cross-country programs since 1938, and the sport has shown significant growth since then. Most reported injuries in men's cross-country are inflammatory conditions, strains, and sprains, with the highest rate of inflammatory conditions occurring in the preseason. Continued monitoring of competition injury rates and commonly reported injuries is necessary for future research.
Context: The National Collegiate Athletic Association has sponsored men's cross-country programs since 1938, and the sport has grown greatly in scope since then. Background: Routine examinations of men's cross-country 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 were analyzed. Injury counts, rates, and proportions were used to describe injury characteristics, and injury rate ratios were used to examine differential injury rates. Results: The overall injury rate was 4.01 per 1000 athlete-exposures (AEs). Most reported injuries were inflammatory conditions (30.2%), strains (18.7%), and sprains (11.5%); rates of inflammatory conditions were highest in preseason. The most commonly reported injuries were lateral ligament complex tears (ankle sprains; 8.2%). Summary: Findings of this study were not entirely consistent with existing evidence; continued monitoring of competition injury rates and rates of commonly reported injuries is needed beyond 2018-2019.

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