4.6 Article

High School Football and Late-Life Risk of Neurodegenerative Syndromes, 1956-1970

期刊

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
卷 92, 期 1, 页码 66-71

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.09.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rochester Epidemiology Project [R01-AG034676]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess whether athletes who played American varsity high school football between 1956 and 1970 have an increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases later in life. Patients and Methods: We identified all male varsity football players between 1956 and 1970 in the public high schools of Rochester, Minnesota, and nonefootball-playing male varsity swimmers, wrestlers, and basketball players. Using the medical records linkage system of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, we ascertained the incidence of late-life neurodegenerative diseases: dementia, parkinsonism, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. We also recorded medical record-documented head trauma during high school years. Results: We identified 296 varsity football players and 190 athletes engaging in other sports. Football players had an increased risk of medically documented head trauma, especially if they played football for more than 1 year. Compared with nonfootball athletes, football players did not have an increased risk of neurodegenerative disease overall or of the individual conditions of dementia, parkinsonism, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Conclusion: In this community-based study, varsity high school football players from 1956 to 1970 did not have an increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases compared with athletes engaged in other varsity sports. This was from an era when there was a generally nihilistic view of concussion dangers, less protective equipment, and no prohibition of spearing (head-first tackling). However, the size and strength of players from previous eras may not be comparable with that of current high school athletes. (C) 2016 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

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

4.6
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