Explore the vast range of titles available.

Injury and illness surveillance, and epidemiological studies, are fundamental elements of concerted efforts to protect the health of the athlete. To encourage consistency in the definitions and methodology used, and to enable data across studies to be compared, research groups have published 11 sport-specific or setting-specific consensus statements on sports injury (and, eventually, illness) epidemiology to date. Our objective was to further strengthen consistency in data collection, injury definitions and research reporting through an updated set of recommendations for sports injury and illness studies, including a new Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist extension. The IOC invited a working group of international experts to review relevant literature and provide recommendations. The procedure included an open online survey, several stages of text drafting and consultation by working groups and a 3-day consensus meeting in October 2019. This statement includes recommendations for data collection and research reporting covering key components: defining and classifying health problems; severity of health problems; capturing and reporting athlete exposure; expressing risk; burden of health problems; study population characteristics and data collection methods. Based on these, we also developed a new reporting guideline as a STROBE Extension—the STROBE Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS). The IOC encourages ongoing in- and out-of-competition surveillance programmes and studies to describe injury and illness trends and patterns, understand their causes and develop measures to protect the health of the athlete. Implementation of the methods outlined in this statement will advance consistency in data collection and research reporting.

Using an expert consensus-based approach, a rugby union Video Analysis Consensus (RUVAC) group was formed to develop a framework for video analysis research in rugby union. The aim of the framework is to improve the consistency of video analysis work in rugby union and help enhance the overall quality of future research in the sport. To reach consensus, a systematic review and Delphi method study design was used. After a systematic search of the literature, 17 articles were used to develop the final framework that described and defined key actions and events in rugby union (rugby). Thereafter, a group of researchers and practitioners with experience and expertise in rugby video analysis formed the RUVAC group. Each member of the group examined the framework of descriptors and definitions and rated their level of agreement on a 5-point agreement Likert scale (1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: neither agree or disagree; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree). The mean rating of agreement on the five-point scale (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree) was 4.6 (4.3–4.9), 4.6 (4.4–4.9), 4.7 (4.5–4.9), 4.8 (4.6–5.0) and 4.8 (4.6–5.0) for the tackle, ruck, scrum, line-out and maul, respectively. The RUVAC group recommends using this consensus as the starting framework when conducting rugby video analysis research. Which variables to use (if not all) depends on the objectives of the study. Furthermore, the intention of this consensus is to help integrate video data with other data (eg, injury surveillance).

In rugby union, published analyses of actions and movements of players during matches have been limited to small samples of games at regional or national level. To analyse movements and activities of players in international rugby union matches with a sample size sufficient to clearly delineate positional roles. Observational study. Actions of 763 players were coded from video recordings of 90 international matches played by the New Zealand national team (the All Blacks) from 2004 to 2010. Movements of players were coded for 27 of these matches via a semi-automated player-tracking system. Movements and activities of all players from both teams were coded. Cluster analysis of activities and time-motion variables produced five subgroups of forwards (props, hookers, locks, flankers, Number 8 forwards) and five subgroups of backs (scrum-half, fly-half, midfield backs, wings and fullbacks). Forwards sustained much higher contact loads per match than backs, via scrums, rucks, tackles and mauls. Mean distance covered per match ranged from 5400 to 6300m, with backs generally running further than forwards. There were marked differences between positional groups in the amount of distance covered at various speeds. The amount of play per match varies by position due to differences in rates at which players are substituted. The distance covered by players at relatively fast running speeds (in excess of 5ms−1) appears to be higher during international matches than when competing at lower levels of the professional game. The specific match demands for positional groups need to be considered when managing player workloads.

Wide variations in the definitions and methodologies used for studies of injuries in rugby union have created inconsistencies in reported data and made interstudy comparisons of results difficult. The International Rugby Board established a Rugby Injury Consensus Group (RICG) to reach an agreement on the appropriate definitions and methodologies to standardise the recording of injuries and reporting of studies in rugby union. The RICG reviewed the consensus definitions and methodologies previously published for football (soccer) at a meeting in Dublin in order to assess their suitability for and application to rugby union. Following this meeting, iterative draft statements were prepared and circulated to members of the RICG for comment; a follow-up meeting was arranged in Dublin, at which time all definitions and procedures were finalised. At this stage, all authors confirmed their agreement with the consensus statement. The agreed document was presented to and approved by the International Rugby Board Council. Agreement was reached on definitions for injury, recurrent injury, non-fatal catastrophic injury, and training and match exposures, together with criteria for classifying injuries in terms of severity, location, type, diagnosis and causation. The definitions and methodology presented in this consensus statement for rugby union are similar to those proposed for football. Adoption of the proposals presented in this consensus statement should ensure that more consistent and comparable results will be obtained from studies of injuries within rugby union.

Concussions in contact sports are challenging for athletes, health professionals and sporting bodies to prevent, detect and manage. Design of interventions for primary prevention, early recognition of concussion and continuing to improve postconcussion management are essential for protecting athletes and promoting brain health. Over the last decade, there have been advancements in video technology for analysing head impact events and improvements in the clinical management of concussions. This study protocol describes how researchers, clinicians and staff from the Australasian National Rugby League (NRL) have brought these advancements together and developed a database of videos with head impact events and clinical outcomes. The intended outputs from this work will enhance the understanding of head impact events in NRL, from biomechanical and gameplay factors to concussion and return to play outcomes. Publishing this protocol increases the transparency of this large-scale effort to better identify head impacts and their relationship to concussions and player movement behaviour to contextualise these variables to generate new knowledge and support the reproducibility of these emerging findings. Between 2017 and 2023, over 5250 head contact cases were recorded in the database, from which >1700 head injury assessments were performed, and >600 concussions were diagnosed. Future studies using these data are planned to inform both primary and secondary injury prevention initiatives, such as risk analysis and prediction of game scenarios that result in concussion, as well as investigation of features and factors that help to inform the duration of recovery and return to play.

Background There is limited research on associations between playing rugby union and player health post-retirement. Objective This study investigated differences in self-reported sport injury history and current self-reported health characteristics between former New Zealand rugby and non-contact sport players with a view to identifying issues to be further investigated with stronger epidemiological research designs. Methods Using a cross-sectional design, the NZ-RugbyHealth study surveyed 470 former rugby and non-contact sport players (43.8 ± 8.1 years; 127 elite rugby, 271 community rugby, 72 non-contact sport) recruited from October 2012 to April 2014. Demographic information, engagement in sport, sport injuries, medical conditions, mood, alcohol and substance use and ratings of current health status were obtained from a self-report 58-item general health e-questionnaire. We highlighted standardised differences in means of > 0.6 and differences in relative percentages of > 1.43 for variables between groups as representing at least moderate effect sizes, and of being worthy of follow-up studies. Results Higher percentages of the elite rugby player group had sustained injuries of a given body-site type (e.g. neck sprain/strain, thigh bruising, hamstring strain) combination than the non-contact sports players. Higher percentages of the rugby groups reported having sustained concussion (94% for elite, 82% for community, 26% for non-contact), injuries requiring hospitalisation (73%, 46%, 25%), injuries that stopped participation in sport permanently (28%, 28%, 11%) and sport-related surgery (72%, 46%, 32%) during their playing career. Both rugby groups had a higher prevalence of osteoarthritis (37%, 18%, 6%) than non-contact athletes and community rugby players had higher levels of hazardous alcohol consumption (38%, 40%, 25%) in retirement than non-contact athletes. There was little difference between rugby players and non-contact sports athletes in self-reported mood, substance use and current physical or psychological health ratings. Conclusions Former rugby player groups were at higher risk than the non-contact player group for most injuries during their playing careers, and in retirement had greater prevalence of osteoarthritis and hazardous alcohol consumption. The relative youth of the groups (43.8 years on average) means that health issues that typically do not emerge until later life may not have yet manifested.

Aim This study investigated differences in cognitive function between former rugby and non-contact-sport players, and assessed the association between concussion history and cognitive function. Methods Overall, 366 former players (mean ± standard deviation [SD] age 43.3 ± 8.2 years) were recruited from October 2012 to April 2014. Engagement in sport, general health, sports injuries and concussion history, and demographic information were obtained from an online self-report questionnaire. Cognitive functioning was assessed using the online CNS Vital Signs neuropsychological test battery. Cohen’s d effect size statistics were calculated for comparisons across player groups, concussion groups (one or more self-reported concussions versus no concussions) and between those groups with CNS Vital Signs age-matched norms (US norms). Individual differences within groups were represented as SDs. Results The elite-rugby group ( n  = 103) performed worse on tests of complex attention, processing speed, executive functioning, and cognitive flexibility than the non-contact-sport group ( n  = 65), and worse than the community-rugby group ( n  = 193) on complex attention. The community-rugby group performed worse than the non-contact group on executive functioning and cognitive flexibility. Compared with US norms, all three former player groups performed worse on verbal memory and reaction time; rugby groups performed worse on processing speed, cognitive flexibility and executive functioning; and the community-rugby group performed worse on composite memory. The community-rugby group and non-contact-sport group performed slightly better than US norms on complex attention, as did the elite-rugby group for motor speed. All three player groups had greater individual differences than US norms on composite memory, verbal memory and reaction time. The elite-rugby group had greater individual differences on processing speed and complex attention, and the community-rugby group had greater individual differences on psychomotor speed and motor speed. The average number of concussions recalled per player was greater for elite rugby and community rugby than non-contact sport. Former players who recalled one or more concussions (elite rugby, 85 %; community rugby, 77 %; non-contact sport, 23 %) had worse scores on cognitive flexibility, executive functioning, and complex attention than players who did not recall experiencing a concussion. Conclusions Past participation in rugby or a history of concussion were associated with small to moderate neurocognitive deficits (as indicated by worse CNS Vital Signs scores) in athletes post retirement from competitive sport.

BackgroundThe loads to which professional rugby players are subjected has been identified as a concern by coaches, players and administrators. In November 2014, World Rugby commissioned an expert group to identify the physical demands and non-physical load issues associated with participation in professional rugby.ObjectiveTo describe the current state of knowledge about the loads encountered by professional rugby players and the implications for their physical and mental health.FindingsThe group defined ‘load’ as it relates to professional rugby players as the total stressors and demands applied to the players. In the 2013–2014 seasons, 40% of professional players appeared in 20 matches or more, and 5% of players appeared in 30 matches or more. Matches account for ∼5–11% of exposure to rugby-related activities (matches, team and individual training sessions) during professional competitions. The match injury rate is about 27 times higher than that in training. The working group surmised that players entering a new level of play, players with unresolved previous injuries, players who are relatively older and players who are subjected to rapid increases in load are probably at increased risk of injury. A mix of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ measures in conjunction with effective communication among team staff and between staff and players was held to be the best approach to monitoring and managing player loads. While comprehensive monitoring holds promise for individually addressing player loads, it brings with it ethical and legal responsibilities that rugby organisations need to address to ensure that players’ personal information is adequately protected.ConclusionsAdministrators, broadcasters, team owners, team staff and the players themselves have important roles in balancing the desire to have the ‘best players’ on the field with the ongoing health of players. In contrast, the coaching, fitness and medical staff exert significant control over the activities, duration and intensity of training sessions. If load is a major risk factor for injury, then managing training loads should be an important element in enabling players to perform in a fit state as often as possible.

Determining whether repetitive head impacts (RHI) cause the development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)-neuropathological change (NC) and whether pathological changes cause clinical syndromes are topics of considerable interest to the global sports medicine community. In 2022, an article was published that used the Bradford Hill criteria to evaluate the claim that RHI cause CTE. The publication garnered international media attention and has since been promoted as definitive proof that causality has been established. Our counterpoint presents an appraisal of the published article in terms of the claims made and the scientific literature used in developing those claims. We conclude that the evidence provided does not justify the causal claims. We discuss how causes are conceptualised in modern epidemiology and highlight shortcomings in the current definitions and measurement of exposures (RHI) and outcomes (CTE). We address the Bradford Hill arguments that are used as evidence in the original review and conclude that assertions of causality having been established are premature. Members of the scientific community must be cautious of making causal claims until the proposed exposures and outcomes are well defined and consistently measured, and findings from appropriately designed studies have been published. Evaluating and reflecting on the quality of research is a crucial step in providing accurate evidence-based information to the public. Graphical abstract

To evaluate if the tackler correctly adhering, or not, to four different instructions of legal front-on one-on-one torso tackles altered the tackler and/or ball carrier peak inertial head kinematics. Controlled laboratory study. Fifteen rugby-code players measured with three-dimensional optoelectronic motion capture performed two tackle instructions from the Australian National Rugby League coaching manual on under (Dominant National Rugby League) and over (Smother National Rugby League) the ball tackles, and two novel variants of these (under, Dominant, Torso Stick; over, Smother, Pop, Lock). A series of mixed general linear models identified if the tackler adhering (n = 455), or not (n = 139) to the tackle instructions altered peak inertial head kinematics. The tackler's peak inertial head kinematics did not significantly change whether or not they adhered to each of the tackle instructions. When the tackler did adhere to the instructions, the ball carrier sustained a lower peak inertial head kinematics (p < 0.01) in the Smother National Rugby League tackle but higher peak inertial head kinematics in the Smother, Pop, Lock. The ball carriers' inertial head kinematics but not the tacklers were increased when the tackler adhered to this study's variants of the over and under the ball tackle instructions, suggesting that the tacklers were more effective in their tackle performance than the traditional tackle instructions when adhering to the tackle instruction. Greater adherence to the under the ball instructions suggests that the over the ball instruction is a more challenging technique to learn.