Limits...
A Meta-Analysis of Soccer Injuries on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass.

Williams JH, Akogyrem E, Williams JR - J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) (2013)

Bottom Line: Analyses of individual injuries and subgroups found that in many cases IRR values were significantly less than 1.0.In no case was the IRR significantly greater than 1.0.However, until more is known about how issues such as altered playing styles affect injury incidence, it is difficult to make firm conclusions regarding the influence of AT on player safety.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA.

ABSTRACT
The goal of this investigation was to determine if playing or training on third-generation artificial turf (AT) surfaces increases the incidence rate of injuries compared to natural grass (NG) surfaces. This was accomplished by a meta-analysis performed on previously published research. Eight studies met the criteria of competitive soccer players, participation on both surfaces, and presentation of both exposure time and injury occurrence. Exposure time and injury incidence values were used to generate injury rate ratios (IRRs, AT/NG) for all injuries as well as specific injuries. Subgroup analyses were also performed by condition (match or training), gender, and age (youth or adult). The overall IRR was 0.86 (P < 0.05) suggesting a lower injury risk on AT than NG. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between studies. Analyses of individual injuries and subgroups found that in many cases IRR values were significantly less than 1.0. In no case was the IRR significantly greater than 1.0. Based on this, it appears that the risk of sustaining an injury on AT under some conditions might be lowered compared to NG. However, until more is known about how issues such as altered playing styles affect injury incidence, it is difficult to make firm conclusions regarding the influence of AT on player safety.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The correlation between the exposure ratio (exposure on AT/NG) and the injury incidence rate ratio. Each data point represents a single study.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590909&req=5

fig3: The correlation between the exposure ratio (exposure on AT/NG) and the injury incidence rate ratio. Each data point represents a single study.

Mentions: There was considerable heterogeneity across the studies examined. For the entire data set, including all injuries as well as both conditions, gender and age (Figure 1), the I2 value was 80%. A portion of the heterogeneity was due to different injuries and locations. For specific injuries and sites (Figure 2), I2 ranged between 43% and 74%. Condition, gender, and age also contributed as I2 values for these categories ranged from 0 to 80%. We found that variations in exposure to AT accounted for some of the heterogeneity. Figure 3 shows a significant negative correlation between the relative amount of time spent on AT (AT exposure/NG exposure) and the IRR for each study. As can be seen, the two studies in which the greater exposure time on AT had the lowest IRR.


A Meta-Analysis of Soccer Injuries on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass.

Williams JH, Akogyrem E, Williams JR - J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) (2013)

The correlation between the exposure ratio (exposure on AT/NG) and the injury incidence rate ratio. Each data point represents a single study.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4590909&req=5

fig3: The correlation between the exposure ratio (exposure on AT/NG) and the injury incidence rate ratio. Each data point represents a single study.
Mentions: There was considerable heterogeneity across the studies examined. For the entire data set, including all injuries as well as both conditions, gender and age (Figure 1), the I2 value was 80%. A portion of the heterogeneity was due to different injuries and locations. For specific injuries and sites (Figure 2), I2 ranged between 43% and 74%. Condition, gender, and age also contributed as I2 values for these categories ranged from 0 to 80%. We found that variations in exposure to AT accounted for some of the heterogeneity. Figure 3 shows a significant negative correlation between the relative amount of time spent on AT (AT exposure/NG exposure) and the IRR for each study. As can be seen, the two studies in which the greater exposure time on AT had the lowest IRR.

Bottom Line: Analyses of individual injuries and subgroups found that in many cases IRR values were significantly less than 1.0.In no case was the IRR significantly greater than 1.0.However, until more is known about how issues such as altered playing styles affect injury incidence, it is difficult to make firm conclusions regarding the influence of AT on player safety.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA.

ABSTRACT
The goal of this investigation was to determine if playing or training on third-generation artificial turf (AT) surfaces increases the incidence rate of injuries compared to natural grass (NG) surfaces. This was accomplished by a meta-analysis performed on previously published research. Eight studies met the criteria of competitive soccer players, participation on both surfaces, and presentation of both exposure time and injury occurrence. Exposure time and injury incidence values were used to generate injury rate ratios (IRRs, AT/NG) for all injuries as well as specific injuries. Subgroup analyses were also performed by condition (match or training), gender, and age (youth or adult). The overall IRR was 0.86 (P < 0.05) suggesting a lower injury risk on AT than NG. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between studies. Analyses of individual injuries and subgroups found that in many cases IRR values were significantly less than 1.0. In no case was the IRR significantly greater than 1.0. Based on this, it appears that the risk of sustaining an injury on AT under some conditions might be lowered compared to NG. However, until more is known about how issues such as altered playing styles affect injury incidence, it is difficult to make firm conclusions regarding the influence of AT on player safety.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus