Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Online original articles

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The following electronic only articles are published in conjunction with this issue of BJSM (see also pages 211 and 216)

Neck injuries presenting to emergency departments in the United States from 1990 to 1999 for ice hockey, soccer, and American football

J S Delaney, A Al-Kashmiri

Objective: To examine the number and rate of neck injuries in the community as a whole for ice hockey, soccer, and American football by analysing data from patients presenting to emergency departments in the United States from 1990 to 1999.

Methods: Data compiled for the US Consumer Product Safety Commission were used to generate estimates for the total number of neck injuries and the more specific diagnoses of neck fractures, dislocations, contusions, sprains, strains, and lacerations occurring nationally from 1990 to 1999. These data were combined with yearly participation figures to generate rates of injury presenting to emergency departments for each sport.

Results: There were an estimated 5038 neck injuries from ice hockey, 19 341 from soccer, and 114 706 from American football. These could be broken down as follows: 4964 contusions, sprains, or strains from ice hockey, 17 927 from soccer, and 104 483 from football; 105 neck fractures or dislocations from ice hockey, 214 from soccer, and 1588 from football; 199 neck lacerations for ice hockey, 0 for soccer, and 621 for football. The rates for total neck injuries and combined neck contusions, sprains, or strains were higher for football than for ice hockey or soccer in all years for which data were available.

Conclusion: The rate of neck injury in the United States was higher in football than in ice hockey or soccer in the time period studied.

(Br J Sports Med 2005;39:e21)

Methods for injury surveillance in international cricket

J W Orchard, D Newman, R Stretch, et al

Background: The varying methods of cricket injury surveillance have made direct comparison of published studies in this field impossible.

Methods: A consensus regarding definitions and methods to calculate injury rates in cricket was sought between researchers in this field. This was arrived at through a variety of face to face meetings, email communication, and draft reviews between researchers from six of the major cricket playing nations.

Results: It is recommended that a cricket injury is defined as any injury or other medical condition that either (a) prevents a player from being fully available for selection for a major match or (b) during a major match, causes a player to be unable to bat, bowl, or keep wicket when required by either the rules or the team’s captain. Recommended definitions for injury incidence (for matches, training sessions, and seasons) and injury prevalence are also provided. It is proposed that match injury incidence is calculated using a denominator based on a standard time estimated for player exposure in matches, for the purposes of simplicity. This will allow all injury surveillance systems, including those with limited resources, to make calculations according to a standard definition.

Conclusion: The consensus statement presented provides a standard which, if followed, allows meaningful comparison of injury surveillance data from different countries and time periods, which will assist in the possible identification of risk factors for injury in cricket.

“Methods for injury surveillance in international cricket”, a collaboration between cricket authorities in Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa, New Zealand, the West Indies, and India, is being published simultaneously in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, the British Journal of Sports Medicine, the South African Journal of Sports Medicine, and the New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine. The paper was concurrently reviewed and edited by the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport and the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

(Br J Sports Med 2005;39:e22)

Linked Articles