You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Systematic mapping review of player safety, sport science and clinical care in lacrosse

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Systematic review
Systematic mapping review of player safety, sport science and clinical care in lacrosse
  1. Kyle Wallace1,
  2. Samantha E. Scarneo-Miller2,
  3. Jennifer Monnin3,
  4. Andrew E Lincoln4,
  5. Omar Hraky5,
  6. Griffith Gosnell6,
  7. Suin Jeong6,
  8. Wilson Skinner6,
  9. Eliana Schaefer7,
  10. Dharmi K Desai8,
  11. Shane V Caswell8,9
  1. 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Division of Athletic Training, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
  3. 3Health Sciences Library, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
  4. 4Special Olympics International, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
  5. 5University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, Maryland, USA
  6. 6Georgetown University Medical Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
  7. 7Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
  8. 8George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
  9. 9Sports Medicine Assessment, Research & Testing (SMART) Laboratory, George Mason University, Manassas, Virginia, USA
  1. Correspondence to Kyle Wallace; kylewallace1020{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objective The objective is to comprehensively classify the types, topics and populations represented in the published lacrosse literature.

Design Mapping review. Protocol registration at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kz4e6).

Data sources 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to 31 March 2023.

Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed studies in English that included lacrosse were eligible. Publications without participant demographic or lacrosse-specific data were excluded.

Results We identified 498 articles pertaining to lacrosse, with 270 (54.2%) focused on player safety, 128 (25.7%) on sport science and 74 (14.9%) on clinical care. Musculoskeletal injury was the focus of 179 studies (35.9%), and the most common study design was cross-sectional (n=162, 32.5%). Most (n=423, 84.9%) originated in the USA. Over half (n=254, 51.0%) were published since 2017. 216 articles (43.4%) included female and male athletes, while 112 (22.5%) and 142 (28.5%) focused solely on female and male athletes, respectively. Collegiate athletes were the most frequent study population (n=277, 55.6%), and traditional field lacrosse was the focus of 298 (59.8%) articles. We observed that 77.1% (27/35) of quasiexperimental, 91.3% (21/23) of randomised controlled trials and 62.1% (18/29) of systematic reviews had a high or moderate risk of bias.

Conclusion The vast majority of lacrosse research originates from the USA, is in collegiate athletes, with a focus on player safety, and has a high risk of bias. With the sport’s inclusion in the 2028 Olympics and growing global participation, higher quality research studies that are more inclusive and adaptable to diverse athletic groups and changing gameplay parameters are needed.

  • Lacrosse
  • Research
  • Review
  • Health
  • Sport

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository. Appendices for this manuscript are available on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KNS3E) and are linked to our original a priori protocol. All included articles in this mapping review, with data coding, are available online (appendix 1). Unfilled JBI checklists are available online (appendix 2). Completed JBI checklists for all included articles are available online (appendix 3).

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108298

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available in a public, open access repository. Appendices for this manuscript are available on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KNS3E) and are linked to our original a priori protocol. All included articles in this mapping review, with data coding, are available online (appendix 1). Unfilled JBI checklists are available online (appendix 2). Completed JBI checklists for all included articles are available online (appendix 3).

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @sscarneomiller

    • Contributors All authors were an integral part of planning, collecting data, designing, writing and reviewing this manuscript. KW, primary author, is the corresponding author and guarantor.

    • Funding Funding for this project was provided by USA Lacrosse and MedStar Health.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.