Lauren A Petrass1, Dara M Twomey. 1. School of Health Sciences, University of Ballarat, Mt Helen, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. l.petrass@ballarat.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify studies which address the relationship between ground conditions and injury, in a sporting context and to evaluate current practice and provide recommendations for future studies that measure ground conditions and injury risk. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases from the earliest records available until the end of 2011, and supplemental hand searching was conducted to identify relevant studies. A classification scale was used to rate the methodological quality of studies. RESULTS: 79 potentially relevant articles were identified, and 27 met all inclusion criteria. They varied in methodological quality, with analytical observational studies the most common design, although four descriptive observational studies, considered to be of lower quality were also identified. Only five studies objectively measured ground conditions, and of studies that used subjective assessment, only one provided descriptors to explain their classifications. It appears that harder/drier grounds are associated with an increased injury risk but the presence of major limitations necessitates cautious interpretation of many key findings. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high quality evidence of the relationship between injury risk and ground conditions. Further research with high quality designs, and measurement of ground conditions are required to draw more definitive conclusions regarding this relationship. Crown
OBJECTIVES: To identify studies which address the relationship between ground conditions and injury, in a sporting context and to evaluate current practice and provide recommendations for future studies that measure ground conditions and injury risk. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases from the earliest records available until the end of 2011, and supplemental hand searching was conducted to identify relevant studies. A classification scale was used to rate the methodological quality of studies. RESULTS: 79 potentially relevant articles were identified, and 27 met all inclusion criteria. They varied in methodological quality, with analytical observational studies the most common design, although four descriptive observational studies, considered to be of lower quality were also identified. Only five studies objectively measured ground conditions, and of studies that used subjective assessment, only one provided descriptors to explain their classifications. It appears that harder/drier grounds are associated with an increased injury risk but the presence of major limitations necessitates cautious interpretation of many key findings. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high quality evidence of the relationship between injury risk and ground conditions. Further research with high quality designs, and measurement of ground conditions are required to draw more definitive conclusions regarding this relationship. Crown