4.6 Article

Epidemiology of National Football League training camp injuries from 1998 to 2007

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 36, 期 8, 页码 1597-1603

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0363546508316021

关键词

National Football League; injury; concussion; hamstring

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Football is one of the leading causes of athletic-related injuries. Injury rates and patterns of the training camp period of the National Football League are unknown. Hypothesis: Injury rates will vary with time, and injury patterns will differ between training camp practices and preseason games. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: From 1998 to 2007, injury data were collected from 1 National Football League team during its training camp period. Injuries were recorded as a strain, sprain, concussion, contusion, fracture/dislocation, or other injury. The injury was further categorized by location on the body. Injury rates were determined based on the exposure of an athlete to a game or practice event. An athlete exposure was defined as 1 athlete participating in 1 practice or game. The injury rate was calculated as the ratio of injuries per 1000 athlete exposures. Results: There were 72.8 (range, 58-109) injuries per year during training camp. Injuries were more common during weeks 1 and 2 than during weeks 3 to 5. The rate of injury was significantly higher during games (64.7/1000 athlete exposures) than practices (12.7/1000 athlete exposures, P < .01). The rate of season-ending injuries was also much higher in games (5.4/1000 athlete exposures) than practices (0.4/1000 athlete exposures). The most common injury during the training camp period was a knee sprain, followed by hamstring strains and contusions. Conclusion: Muscle strains are the most common injury type in practices. Contact type injuries are most common during preseason games, and the number of significant injuries that occur during preseason games is high.

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