Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Groin/hip injuries are common in the athletic population, particularly in sports requiring kicking, twisting, turning and rapid acceleration and deceleration. Chronic hip, buttock and groin pain account for 10% of all attendances to sports medicine centres. Understanding risk factors for field-based sports (FBS) players is important in developing preventive measures for injury. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify and examine the evidence for groin/hip injury risk factors in FBS. METHODS: 14 electronic databases were searched using keywords. Studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria and investigated one or more risk factors with relation to the incidence of groin/hip injuries in FBS. Studies were accumulated and independently analysed by two reviewers under a 12-point quality assessment scale (modified CASP (for cohort study design) assessment scale). Owing to the heterogeneity of studies and measures used, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. As a result risk factors were pooled for analysis and discussion. RESULTS: Of the 5842 potentially relevant studies, 7 high-quality studies were included in this review. Results demonstrated that previous groin/hip injury was the most prominent risk factor, identified across four studies (OR range from 2.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 6.11) to 7.3, (p=0.001)), followed by older age (OR 0.9, p=0.05) and weak adductor muscles (OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.31 to 14.0, p=0.02) each identified in two studies. Eight other significant risk factors were identified once across the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: 11 significant risk factors for groin/hip injury for FBS players were identified. The most prominent risk factor identified was previous groin/hip injury. Future research should include a prospective study of a group of FBS players to confirm a relationship between the risk factors identified and development of groin/hip injuries.
Ryan et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: