Magnitude, direction, level and strength of evidence for the relationship between injuries and/or illness on the success and failure outcomes
| Finding | Source population | Size of effect | OCEBM level | Risk of bias | ||
| Success | Failure | Score (%) | Interpretation | |||
| Availability of team members | ||||||
| Hagglundet al 2 | Pro. football | NA | +++ | 2 | 83% | Low |
| Podlog et al 26 | Pro. basketball | NA | ++ | 2 | 76% | Low |
| Raysmith and Drew (2016)* | Elite track and field | +++ | +++ | 2 | 83% | Low |
| Limited positive, n=1, 100% | Strong negative, n=3, 100% | 2 | ||||
| Injury incidence | ||||||
| Dauty and Collon (2011) | Pro. football | − | − | 4 | 69% | Moderate |
| Eirale et al (2012) | Pro. football | +++ | ≡ | 2 | 62% | Moderate |
| Emery et al (2011) | Jnr ice hockey | +++ | ≡ | 3 | 76% | Low |
| Gabbett (2004) | Rugby league | − | − | 4 | 62% | Moderate |
| Raysmith and Drew (2016) | Track and field | ≡ | +++ | 2 | 83% | Low |
| Moderate positive, n=3, 60% | Moderate negative, n=3, 60% | 3 | ||||
| (Potentially lower incidence increases success) | ||||||
| Injury burden | ||||||
| Arnason et al (2004) | Pro. football | − | − | 2 | 76% | Low |
| Eirale et al (2012) | Pro. football | − | − | 2 | 62% | Moderate |
| Raysmith and Drew (2016) | Elite track and field | +++ | ≡ | 2 | 83% | Low |
| Williams et al (2015) | Pro. rugby union | ≡ | +++ | 2 | 79% | Low |
| Moderate positive, n=2, 50% | Moderate negative, n=2, 50% | 2 | ||||
| Precompetition Injury | ||||||
| Feehan et al (1995) | Elite taekwondo | − | − | 3 | 62% | Moderate |
| Raysmith and Drew (2016) | Elite track and field | +++ | ≡ | 2 | 83% | Low |
| Verrall et al (2006) | Pro. Australian football | NA | +++ | 4 | 69% | Moderate |
| Limited no effect, n=1, 20% | Strong negative, n=4, 80% | 2.8 | ||||
| In-competition injury | ||||||
| Bengtsson et al (2013) | Pro. football | NA | ++ | 2 | 66% | Moderate |
| Dauty and Collon (2011) | Pro. football | − | − | 4 | 69% | Moderate |
| Kazemi (2012) | Elite taekwondo | NA | +++ | 4 | 76% | Low |
| Limited no effect, n=1, 20% | Strong negative, n=4, 80% | 3 | ||||
| Squad utilisation | ||||||
| Carling et al (2015) | Pro. football | + | ≡ | 4 | 66% | Moderate |
| Limited positive, n=1, 100% | Limited negative, n=1, 100% | 4 | ||||
Strength of evidence, the direction of the finding in relations to success, number of studies and percentage of studies finding a significant result, average OCEBM and interpretation are presented in the last row for each study finding category; success, as determined by the study definition; failure, as determined by the study definition; Jnr, junior; Pro, professional level; OCEMB, Oxford Centre of Evidence-based Medicine—Levels of Evidence; +, small effect OR=1–1.25; ++, medium effect OR=1.25–2; +++, large effect OR ≥2; NA, not assessed; −, no relationship; ≡, inverse to reported effect of other outcome; descriptions within parentheses are to clarify the direction of the finding in relation to the outcome; quality of study as determined by the score on the Modified Downs and Black checklist; a score of ≥75% was deemed to be high quality, 60%–75% moderate quality and ≤60% low quality14; ‘negative/positive/no effect’ is reported in relationship to achieving success. That is, a positive effect increases chance of success and a negative effect decreases chance of success (or increases failure). ‘(increased/decreased)’ is reported in relation to the direction of the finding. That is, a decreased team availability rate is associated with a large effect of failure.
*Individual availability to training prior to competition.