MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries

2001· article· en· W2041619403 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lawrence E. Hart, Louise Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsU SPORTS
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyRecreationMedicineLeagueInjury preventionPoison controlPhysical therapyEpidemiologyDemographyMedical emergencyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dryden DM, Francescutti LH, Rowe BH, Spence JC, Voaklander DC. Epidemiology of women's recreational ice hockey injuries. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:1378–1383. ObjectiveWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries To examine the incidence and nature of injuries in female recreational ice hockey players. DesignWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries Cohort study for the duration of the 1997 to 1998 ice hockey season. SettingWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries Women's ice hockey leagues, Edmonton, Canada. ParticipantsWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries Participants were recruited from all the teams in the 2 women's ice hockey leagues, which represented ¬90% of the area's women's recreational ice hockey players. The study included 314 players from 33 teams (74% of the players). Players were subdivided into women in adult teams (adult women's recreational teams [AWRT]), n = 236, mean age 27 years) and midget teams (≤18 years of age, n = 78, mean age 14.7 years). Assessment of risk factorsWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries Players were recruited in the dressing room immediately after the first game of the season. Information on anthropomorphic, demographic, and lifestyle characteristics and history of injuries was obtained. Telephone interviewers collected game participation and injury data monthly. Main outcome measuresWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries Injuries were defined as any acute injury sustained while playing women's ice hockey during any game or practice that resulted in the women missing the remainder of the game or practice, a subsequent game or practice, and/or required the women to consult a health professional. Diagnoses were self-reported or obtained from the health professional consulted. Injury rates were calculated as number of injuries divided by the sum of the players' reported game and practice attendances. Main resultsWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries 102 players reported 125 injuries during the season (7.5 injuries/ 1,000 player exposures [PE]). Among the AWRT there were 93 injuries (7.8 injuries/1,000 PE) compared with 32 injuries to midget players (6.7 injuries/1,000 PE). For all players the lower extremity was most frequently injured (AWRT, 28% of injuries and midget, 41%) followed by injuries to the upper extremity, the torso, and the head/neck/face (29% and 22%; 25% and 31%; and 18% and 6%, for AWRT and midget, respectively). Overall the most frequently injured sites were the lower back (14%), the knee (12%), and the shoulder (10%). The predominant injury diagnosis for AWRT players was sprain/strain (57%) and for midget players was contusion (50%). The dominant mechanism of injury was player contact from collisions or body checks (40%). These were similar for AWRT and midget players. 66% of injuries occurred during league games, 27% during play-off, tournament, and exhibition games, and 7% during practices. The greatest proportion of injuries (44%) occurred during the third period of games. Medical attention was not sought for 36% of injuries. 1 player was hospitalized for a meniscal tear. 18% of injuries resulted in an absence from hockey of (≥8 days. ConclusionWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries Both adult and young women playing recreational ice hockey are at risk for injury, more so during games than practices. Source of funding: Royal Alexandra Hospital Foundation, Alberta. For article reprint: Dr. Don Voaklander, Department of Rural Health, University of Melbourne, PO Box 6500, Shepparton, Victoria 3632, Australia. CommentaryWomen's Recreational Ice Hockey Injuries The study by Dryden et al. was designed to be able to compare injury rates in a recreational women's hockey league with a similar study of a men's recreational league. 1 Schick et al., 2 in a study of Canada West Universities Athletic Association (CWUAA) teams, found an injury rate similar to Dryden and also compared females with males. In their larger study (33 versus 12 teams), Dryden et al. concluded that the injury rate was lower in the women's league (7.5 injuries/1,000 PE overall) than in the men's league (12.2 injuries/1,000 PE). However, Schick did not find a significant difference although there were fewer injuries on the women's teams (7.77 injuries/1,000 PE) than the men's teams (9.19 injuries/1,000 PE). The results may differ because Schick investigated more highly competitive teams than did Dryden. The most common female injuries (>80%) in the recreational league were sprains, strains, and contusions, whereas concussion was the most common injury in the CWUAA. Injuries resulting from contact were the most common injuries in both cases. Body checking is not allowed at any level of women's hockey but there is contact with boards, ice, an opponent, sticks, etc. The high incidence of concussion in CWUAA women's hockey raises concern, but generalization to women's hockey in the United States may not be possible because equipment requirements differ in the two countries. Since studies in boxing have shown a reduction in concussions by the use of mouth guards, they have become mandatory for women hockey players in the U.S.A. Neck guards to reduce serious lacerations are mandatory in Canada. Both studies noted a higher incidence of low back injuries in women than in men, which deserves further study. As in studies on men, injuries seem to be more common in games versus practices, early season or league versus late season or play-offs, and late in the game versus early. Understanding the epidemiology of hockey injuries should spur future research in the direction of injury prevention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207