Item added to basket

product name

Basket total £ 0.00
  • product added £ 0.00
checkout

1. Introduction to epidemiology
2. Soccer injury epidemiology
3. Reliability of soccer injury epidemiology studies
4. Ekstrand and Gillquist propose stretching and strengthening
5. Keller et al advocate warm up and stretching
6. Hawkins and Fuller identify fatigue as a factor
7. Conclusion
8. References

Soccer has been described by Fevre (1998) as a "collision sport" due to its physical nature, but epidemiological studies suggest that many injuries are not due to direct contact, but other causes such as overuse or overstrain (Ekstrand and Gillquist, 1983). The fact that expert clinicians have, apparently, diverse opinions on the nature and etiology of injury within soccer is due to differing interpretation of the available epidemiological evidence.

Hennekens and Buring (1994) state that the interpretation of epidemiological data is dependent on two assumptions. The first is that the activity in question - soccer - causes the injury. The second assumption is that other causes of an injury are equally distributed between participants who get injured and those who don't. The first assumption can be satisfied, as all injuries in the research that is examined within this review indisputably occurred during soccer. However, the second assumption may not apply due to methodological problems in the literature.

Soccer injury epidemiological research takes place in the clinical environment and there is a lack of experimental control. The main outcome of this type of research is to form the basis of epidemiological hypotheses, that are founded upon observations of associations between two variables. Because of the lack of experimental control, the questions is "are the associations valid?" or "are they due to bias or error?"

Reliability of soccer injury epidemiology studies >