AbstractBackground Injury and illness surveillance is a cornerstone in the development of prevention programs. Recent advances in methodology can ensure more detailed and accurate information. Objective The objective of this study was to provide an overview of the incidence and characteristics of time-loss injuries and illnesses during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022.Design Observational descriptive study Setting FIFA World CupParticipants 831 football players participating in the FWC 2022 were eligible, and 705 players consented to participate. Interventions Injury and illness reporting by team medical staff during the FIFA World Cup 2022. Main Outcome Measurements Time-loss injuries and illnesses. Results We recorded 83 time-loss injuries corresponding to an injury incidence of 5.8 injuries/1000 h of total exposure (95%CI 4.6 to 7.2 injuries/1000 h). This is equivalent to app. 3 injured players per team of 26 players. Muscle injuries had the highest incidence (2.79 (95%CI 1.99 to 3.79) of pathology types, and hamstring muscle injuries were the most frequent diagnosis (incidence 1.11, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.81). The match injury incidence was 21.6/1000 h (15.7 to 28.7), and the training injury incidence was 1.7/1000 h (1.1 to 2.6). The majority (60%) of sudden-onset injuries were non-contact injuries, 34% were a result of direct contact and 6% of indirect contact. Of the match injuries, 7 injuries were considered foul play, with two situations resulting in a yellow card for the opponent. There were 16 reported time-loss illnesses, which corresponds to an illness incidence rate of 0.43 per 365 days, (95%CI: 0.24 to 0.69). Simplified, this means approximately 59% of the teams had at least one player fall ill during the tournament. The most common illness was respiratory infection (81%). Conclusions Match injury incidence was the lowest in any FIFA World Cup since injuries have been monitored.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2024 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: