Table 1

Magnitude, direction, level and strength of evidence for the relationship between injuries and/or illness on the success and failure outcomes

FindingSource populationSize of effectOCEBM levelRisk of bias
SuccessFailureScore (%)Interpretation
Availability of team members
Hagglundet al 2 Pro. footballNA+++283%Low
Podlog et al 26 Pro. basketballNA++276%Low
Raysmith and Drew (2016)*Elite track and field++++++283%Low
Limited positive, n=1, 100%Strong negative, n=3, 100%2
Injury incidence
Dauty and Collon (2011)Pro. football469%Moderate
Eirale et al (2012)Pro. football+++262%Moderate
Emery et al (2011)Jnr ice hockey+++376%Low
Gabbett (2004)Rugby league462%Moderate
Raysmith and Drew (2016)Track and field+++283%Low
Moderate positive, n=3, 60%Moderate negative, n=3, 60%3
(Potentially lower incidence increases success)
Injury burden
Arnason et al (2004)Pro. football276%Low
Eirale et al (2012)Pro. football262%Moderate
Raysmith and Drew (2016)Elite track and field+++283%Low
Williams et al (2015)Pro. rugby union+++279%Low
Moderate positive, n=2, 50%Moderate negative, n=2, 50%2
Precompetition Injury
Feehan et al (1995)Elite taekwondo362%Moderate
Raysmith and Drew (2016)Elite track and field+++283%Low
Verrall et al (2006)Pro. Australian footballNA+++469%Moderate
Limited no effect, n=1, 20%Strong negative, n=4, 80%2.8
In-competition injury
Bengtsson et al (2013)Pro. footballNA++266%Moderate
Dauty and Collon (2011)Pro. football469%Moderate
Kazemi (2012)Elite taekwondoNA+++476%Low
Limited no effect, n=1, 20%Strong negative, n=4, 80%3
Squad utilisation
Carling et al (2015)Pro. football+466%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.