What is the Injury Incidence and Profile in Professional Male Ice Hockey? A Systematic Review.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Professional male ice hockey is characterized by a congested in-season match schedule and by different scenarios where the whole body is exposed to great internal and external forces. Consequently, injuries occur from head to toe. However, there is a lack of data synthesis regarding the injury incidence and profile in this population.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to quantify the injury incidence rates in professional male ice hockey.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest-Sport medicine & Education Index, and Pro-Quest Dissertation and Thesis were searched utilizing terms related to ice hockey and injuries. Studies were included if they provided the incidence of injury in professional male hockey players and reported injuries in terms of time lost. The modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance Statement were used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the review. Match injury incidence ranged from 38 to 88.6 injuries/1000 hours of exposure, whereas training injury incidence varied from 0.4 to 2.6 injuries/1000 hours of exposure. Injuries of traumatic origin accounted for 76% to 96.6% of all injuries, with contusions and lacerations being the most common. Severe injuries accounted for 7.8% - 20% of all injuries. The lower extremities were the most susceptible to injury, comprising 27% to 53.7% of all reported injuries.

CONCLUSION

Professional male ice hockey players are exposed to a substantial risk of injury during competitions, with lower extremities being the most commonly affected body part. The majority of injuries are traumatic and severe injuries account for a notable portion of overall injury cases.

Related collections

Most cited references 45

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 12792 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Erik von Elm, Douglas G. Altman, Matthias Egger … (2008)

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

0 comments Cited 2523 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments

Carson Lo, Dominik Mertz, Mark Loeb (2014)

Background Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza. Methods Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008–2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics. Results Authors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers’ assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6–6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4–6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = −0.004, 95% CI = −0.11, 0.11). Conclusions Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.

0 comments Cited 682 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Sports Phys Ther

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Int J Sports Phys Ther

Journal ID (publisher-id): 2159

Title: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

Publisher: NASMI

ISSN (Electronic): 2159-2896

Publication date (Electronic, pub): 2 January 2024

Publication date (Electronic, collection): 2024

Volume: 19

Issue: 1

Pages: 1398-1409

Affiliations

[1 ] deptDEASS; eduUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland; ROR https://ror.org/05ep8g269;

[2 ] eduHockey Club Lugano, Switzerland;

[3 ] deptPhysiotherapy; eduUniversità Campus Bio-Medico; ROR https://ror.org/04gqx4x78;

[4 ] deptPhysiotherapy; eduUniversity of Padua; ROR https://ror.org/00240q980;

[5 ] eduKiné Rehab Center, Treviso, Italy;

[6 ] deptDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery; eduCopenhagen University Hospital; ROR https://ror.org/05bpbnx46;

[7 ] deptDepartment of Clinical Medicine; eduUniversity of Copenhagen; ROR https://ror.org/035b05819;

[8 ] deptPhysical Medicine & Rehabilitation Research-Copenhagen; eduCopenhagen University Hospital; ROR https://ror.org/05bpbnx46;

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Marco Cattaneo marco.cattaneo@supsi.ch

Article

Publisher ID: 90591

DOI: 10.26603/001c.90591

PMC ID: 10761628

PubMed ID: 38179586

SO-VID: 1a48949f-e068-4575-b400-e7dccb0500e4

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

What is the Injury Incidence and Profile in Professional Male Ice Hockey? A Systematic Review.

Read this article at

Abstract

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE

STUDY DESIGN

METHODS

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

Related collections

Special feature: Lessons Learned From Professional Doctorates

Most cited references 45

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 371

Most referenced authors 856