4.6 Article

Injuries and illnesses of football players during the 2010 FIFA World Cup

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 45, 期 8, 页码 626-630

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2010.079905

关键词

-

资金

  1. Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Zurich, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The incidence and characteristics of football injuries during matches in top-level international tournaments are well documented, but training injuries and illnesses during this period have rarely been studied. Aim To analyse the incidence and characteristics of injuries and illnesses incurred during the 2010 Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup. Methods The chief physicians of the 32 finalist teams reported daily all newly incurred injuries and illnesses of their players on a standardised medical report form. Results Out of 229 injuries reported, 82 match and 58 training injuries were expected to result in time loss, equivalent to an incidence of 40.1 match and 4.4 training injuries per 1000 h. Contact with another player was the most frequent cause of match (65%) and of training (40%) injuries. The most frequent diagnoses were thigh strain and ankle sprain. 99 illnesses of 89 (12%) players were reported. Illnesses were mainly infections of the respiratory or the digestive system. Most illnesses did not result in absence from training or match. The incidence of time-loss illnesses was 3.0 per 1000 player days. Conclusion The incidence of match injuries during the 2010 FIFA World Cup was significantly lower than in the three proceeding World Cups. This might be a result of more regard to injury prevention, less foul play and stricter refereeing. Tackling skills and fair play need to be improved to prevent contact injuries in training and matches. Prevention of illness should focus on reducing the risk of infections by considering the common modes of transmission and environmental conditions.

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