MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414349099 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2025-109915

Prevention strategies and modifiable risk factors for concussion: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the Female, woman and girl/or Athlete Injury pRevention (FAIR) consensus

2025· article· en· W4414349099 on OpenAlexaff
Isla Shill, Heather A. Shepherd, Paul Eliason, Ash T Kolstad, Omar Heyward, Géraldine Martens, Kerry Peek, Clara A Soligon, Matthew King, Osman Hassan Ahmed, Cheri Blauwet, Steven P. Broglio, Araba Chintoh, Jean‐Michel Galarneau, Alix Hayden, Sharief Hendricks, Michael Makdissi, Debbie Palmer, Stacy Sick, Jackie L. Whittaker, Kay M. Crossley, Kathryn Schneider, Carolyn A. Emery

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersInternational Olympic Committee
KeywordsAthletesInjury preventionSuicide preventionPoison controlMEDLINEBest evidenceHuman factors and ergonomicsPrimary preventionEvidence-based medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine prevention strategies and potential modifiable risk factors (MRFs) for sport-related concussion (SRC) and head impact/head acceleration event (HAE) outcomes in female, woman and/or girl athletes. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analyses and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINfo, SportDiscus, ERIC, CENTRAL and CDSR. ELIGIBILITY: Primary data studies with comparison group(s) assessing the association of prevention interventions and/or MRFs for SRC or HAE with ≥1 female/woman/girl in each study group. RESULTS: Of the 108 included studies, 67 evaluated a SRC prevention strategy (equipment n=25, policy/rule n=21, training n=10, management n=11) and 41 evaluated potential MRFs (34 distinct MRFs across nine categories). In total, 40/108 (37%) studies (prevention 19/67; MRF 21/41) included female/woman/girl-specific estimates. Three meta-analyses were conducted: two SRC prevention strategies (headgear, eyewear) and one MRF (artificial turf vs grass) based on availability of female/woman/girl-only estimates and similar outcomes and exposure. Headgear was associated with 30% lower SRC rates in adolescent female/girl lacrosse and soccer (IRR=0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; very-low certainty). Eyewear use was not protective for SRC (IRR=1.08, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.68; very-low certainty). SRC rates did not differ by artificial turf versus grass (IRR=0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.45; very-low certainty). CONCLUSION: We found limited evidence for prevention strategies and MRFs in female/woman/girl athletes except for very-low certainty evidence supporting headgear use in adolescent lacrosse and soccer. Future studies should consider the design, implementation and evaluation of SRC prevention strategies that target MRFs to guide safe practice recommendations specifically for female/woman/girl athletes.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.034
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→