Incidence of football injuries sustained on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Kuitunen I, Immonen V, Pakarinen O, Mattila VM, Ponkilainen VT
EClinicalMedicine · 16 citations
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
- Independent funding
Based on full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2023-04-13 · EClinicalMedicine · vol. 59 · p. 101956
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 26 citations · more than 82% of similar papers · 1.7× the field average
- References
- 38 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Sports injuries and prevention · Cardiovascular Effects of Exercise · Injury Epidemiology and Prevention
- Keywords
- Medicine, Incidence (geometry), Meta-analysis, Football, Rate ratio, Observational study, Poison control, Confounding, Confidence interval, Injury prevention, Demography, Physical therapy, Emergency medicine, Internal medicine
5 authors
From FI
- Ilari KuitunenUniversity of Eastern Finland; Kuopio University Hospital
- Ville Immonen
- Oskari PakarinenTampere University
- Ville Matti MattilaTampere University; Tampere University Hospital; Tampere University
- Ville PonkilainenCentral Finland Health Care District
Abstract
Background
Prior reviews have not conducted statistical synthesis of injury incidence on artificial turf in football. To analyse and compare the incidence of injuries sustained playing football (soccer) on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces.
Methods
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases in October 2022 without filters. All observational studies (prospective or retrospective) that analysed injuries sustained playing football on artificial turf and which included a control group that played on grass or other surface were included. Studies were included if they reported the number of injuries and the exposure time for the playing surfaces. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO on October 30th, 2022. Registration number: CRD42022371414.
Findings
We screened 1447 studies, and evaluated 67 full reports, and finally included 22 studies. Risk of bias was a notable issue, as only 5 of the 22 studies adjusted their analysis for potential confounders. Men (11 studies: IRR 0.82, CI 0.72-0.94) and women (5 studies: IRR 0.83, CI 0.76-0.91) had lower injury incidence on artificial turf. Professional players had a lower incidence of injury (8 studies: IRR 0.79, CI 0.70-0.90) on artificial turf, whereas there was no evidence of differences in the incidence of injury in amateur players (8 studies: IRR 0.91, CI 0.77-1.09). The incidence of pelvis/thigh (10 studies: IRR 0.72, CI 0.57-0.90), and knee injuries (14 studies: IRR 0.77, CI 0.64-0.92) were lower on artificial turf.
Interpretation
The overall incidence of football injuries is lower on artificial turf than on grass. Based on these findings, the risk of injury can't be used as an argument against artificial turf when considering the optimal playing surface for football.
Funding
No specific funding was received for this study.
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?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething 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 inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.