4.3 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF ATHLETIC TRAINING
卷 56, 期 7, 页码 734-741

出版社

NATL ATHLETIC TRAINERS ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-668-20

关键词

collegiate; epidemiology; injury surveillance

资金

  1. NCAA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed an increasing trend in practice and preseason injury incidence among women's softball athletes, with head, face, hand/wrist, and knee injuries being the most common. Concussion was the most commonly reported injury, and its incidence fluctuated during the period from 2014-2015 through 2018-2019.
Context: Women's softball athletes account for approximately 9% of all female athletes competing within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Background: Routine surveillance of NCAA women's softball injuries is important for identifying the emerging injury patterns in this sport. Methods: Exposure and injury data collected during competitive seasons in the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program during 2014-2015 through 2018-2019 (5 years) academic years were analyzed. Injury counts, rates, and proportions were used to describe injury characteristics; injury rate ratios (IRRs) were used to examine differential injury rates. Results: The overall injury rate was 3.92 per 1000 athlete exposures. Practice and preseason injury rates increased during 2015/16 through 2018/19. Most injuries were shoulder (15.2%), hand/wrist (11.8%), knee (11.2%), and head/face injuries (11.2%) and were classified as contusions (14.2%), sprains (14.1%), and inflammatory conditions (14.1%). Concussion (6.8%) was the most commonly reported injury, and concussion incidence fluctuated during 2014-2015 through 2018-2019. Summary: Results indicate an increasing trend in practice and preseason injury incidence. Findings also suggest that workload accumulation in the shoulder and the mechanisms of concussion warrant further attention in this population.

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

4.3
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