Study2013Open access

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

Williams JH, Akogyrem E, Williams JR

Journal of sports medicine (Hindawi Publishing Corporation) · 7 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosed

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Meta-analysis (classified by our AI screen)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Clinical events such as disease or death

Who paid for it

Funding
Funding not disclosed

Publication

Published
2013-01-01 · J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) · vol. 2013 · pp. 1–6
Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Cited
23 citations · more than 25% of similar papers · 0.1× the field average
References
24 works
Access
Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Sports injuries and prevention · Injury Epidemiology and Prevention · Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
Incidence (geometry), Mathematics, Animal science, Medicine, Demography, Biology, Geometry

5 authors

From US

  • Jay H. WilliamsVirginia Tech
  • Jay H. Williams · correspondingVirginia Tech
  • Emmanuel AkogyremVirginia Tech
  • Jeremy R. WilliamsVirginia Tech
  • Jeremy R. Williams · correspondingVirginia Tech

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.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.