4.4 Article

Padded Headgear does not Reduce the Incidence of Match Concussions in Professional Men's Rugby Union: A Case-control Study of 417 Cases

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 930-935

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1345-9163

关键词

traumatic brain injury; mTBI; sports injury; injury prevention; equipment; concussion severity

资金

  1. Rugby Football Union and Premiership Rugby

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research in professional male rugby union players in England found that wearing padded headgear did not significantly affect concussion injury rates or time to return to play. Having a history of concussion significantly increased the odds of sustaining a concussion.
Concussion is the most common match injury in rugby union. Some players wear padded headgear, but whether this protects against concussion is unclear. In professional male rugby union players, we examined: (i) the association between the use of headgear and match concussion injury incidence, and (ii) whether wearing headgear influenced time to return to play following concussion. Using a nested case-control within a cohort study, four seasons (2013-2017) of injury data from 1117 players at the highest level of rugby union in England were included. Cases were physician-diagnosed concussion injuries. Controls were other contact injuries (excluding all head injuries). We determined headgear use by viewing video footage. Sixteen percent of cases and controls wore headgear. Headgear use had no significant effect on concussion injury incidence (adjusted odds ratio=1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.56). Median number of days absent for concussion whilst wearing headgear was 8 days, compared with 7 days without headgear. Having sustained a concussion in the current or previous season increased the odds of concussion more than four-fold (odds ratio=4.55, 95% CI: 3.77-5.49). Wearing headgear was not associated with lower odds of concussions or a reduced number of days' absence following a concussion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据