-
International Wound Journal Oct 2019The effective approach on pressure ulcer (PU) prevention regarding patient safety in the hospital context was evaluated. Studies were identified from searches in EBSCO... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effective approach on pressure ulcer (PU) prevention regarding patient safety in the hospital context was evaluated. Studies were identified from searches in EBSCO host, PubMed, and WebofScience databases from 2009 up to December 2018. Studies were selected if they were published in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish; incidence of PUs was the primary outcome; participants were adults (≥18 years) admitted in hospital wards and/or units. The review included 26 studies. Studies related to prophylactic dressings applied in the sacrum, trochanters, and/or heels, education for health care professionals, and preventive skin care and system reminders on-screen inpatient care plan were effective in decreasing PUs. Most of the studies related to multiple intervention programmes were effective in decreasing PU occurrence. Single interventions, namely support surfaces and repositioning, were not always effective in preventing PUs. Repositioning only was effective when supported by technological pressure-mapping feedback or by a patient positioning system. Risk-assessment tools are not effective in preventing PUs. PUs in the hospital context are still a worldwide issue related to patient safety. Multiple intervention programmes were more effective in decreasing PU occurrence than single interventions in isolation. Single interventions (prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, repositioning, preventive skin care, system reminders, and education for health care professionals) were effective in decreasing PUs, which was always in compliance with other preventive measures. These results provide an overview of effective approaches that should be considered when establishing evidence-based guidelines to hospital health care professionals and administrators for clinical practice effective in preventing PUs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Bandages; Case-Control Studies; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hospitalization; Humans; Inpatients; Male; Patient Positioning; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pressure Ulcer; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Skin Care; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31264345
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13147 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2021After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead to implant failure leading to peri-implantitis and loss of supporting bone, which may eventually lead to failure of implant. Surface chemistry of the implant and lack of cleanliness on the part of the patient are related to peri-implantitis. The only way to get rid of this infection is decontamination of dental implants.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review intended to study decontamination of microbial biofilm methods on titanium implant surfaces used in dentistry.
METHODS
The electronic databases Springer Link, Science Direct, and PubMed were explored from their inception until December 2020 to identify relevant studies. Studies included had to evaluate the efficiency of new strategies either to prevent formation of biofilm or to treat matured biofilm on dental implant surfaces.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this systematic review, 17 different groups of decontamination methods were summarized from 116 studies. The decontamination methods included coating materials, mechanical cleaning, laser treatment, photodynamic therapy, air polishing, anodizing treatment, radiation, sonication, thermal treatment, ultrasound treatment, chemical treatment, electrochemical treatment, antimicrobial drugs, argon treatment, and probiotics.
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that most of the decontamination methods were effective in preventing the formation of biofilm and in decontaminating established biofilm on dental implants. This narrative review provides a summary of methods for future research in the development of new dental implants and decontamination techniques.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Biofilms; Decontamination; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 34692562
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.736186 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) May 2021This systematic review aims to evaluate the different pretreatments of the zirconia surface and resin cement in order to determine a valid operative protocol for... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to evaluate the different pretreatments of the zirconia surface and resin cement in order to determine a valid operative protocol for adhesive cementation. Methodologies conducted for this study followed the Prisma (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. An electronic search was performed in four databases. The established focus question was: "What type of surface conditioning method is the one that obtains the best adhesion values to zirconia over time by applying a resin cement?" Forty-five relevant papers were found to qualify for final inclusion. In total, 260 different surface pretreatment methods, mainly combinations of air-abrasion protocols and adhesive promoters, were investigated. Altogether, the use of two artificial aging methods, three types of cement and four testing methods was reported. The results showed that mechanicochemical surface pretreatments offered the best adhesive results. Self-adhesive cement and those containing 10-MDP obtained the best results in adhesion to zirconia. Artificial aging reduced adhesion, so storage in water for 30 days or thermocycling for 5000 cycles is recommended. A standardized adhesive protocol has not been established due to a lack of evidence.
PubMed: 34067501
DOI: 10.3390/ma14112751 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Jan 2023This review study provides an overview of factors that influence the longevity of all types of direct resin composite restorations. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This review study provides an overview of factors that influence the longevity of all types of direct resin composite restorations.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles reporting data from primary longitudinal clinical studies on composite longevity published 2011-2021. Prospective or retrospective studies with restorations in permanent dentition, with follow-up periods of at least 5 years were included.
RESULTS
In total, 33 articles were included with different study designs, practice settings, datasets, countries of origin, and sample sizes. Annual failure rates of restorations ranged from 0.08% to 6.3%. Survival rates varied between 23% and 97.7%, success rates varied between 43.4% and 98.7%. Secondary caries, fractures, and esthetic compromise were main reasons for failures. Risk factors for reduced restoration durability included patient-level factors (e.g., caries risk, parafunctional habits, number of check-ups per year, socioeconomic status), dentist factors (different operators, operator's experience), and tooth/restoration factors (endodontic treatment, type of tooth, number of restored surfaces). Patient gender and the composite used generally did not influence durability.
SIGNIFICANCE
A number of risk factors are involved in the longevity of composite restorations. Differences between composites play a minor role in durability, assuming that materials and techniques are properly applied by dentists. Patient factors play a major role in longevity. The decision-making process implemented by dentists relative to the diagnosis of aging or failed restorations may also affect the longevity of restorations. Clinicians should treat patients comprehensively and promote a healthy lifestyle to ensure longevity.
Topics: Humans; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 36494241
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.11.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Pit and fissure sealants are plastic materials that are used to seal deep pits and fissures on the occlusal surfaces of teeth, where decay occurs most often in children... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pit and fissure sealants are plastic materials that are used to seal deep pits and fissures on the occlusal surfaces of teeth, where decay occurs most often in children and adolescents. Deep pits and fissures can retain food debris and bacteria, making them difficult to clean, thereby causing them to be more susceptible to dental caries. The application of a pit and fissure sealant, a non-invasive preventive approach, can prevent dental caries by forming a protective barrier that reduces food entrapment and bacterial growth. Though moderate-certainty evidence shows that sealants are effective in preventing caries in permanent teeth, the effectiveness of applying pit and fissure sealants to primary teeth has yet to be established.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of sealants compared to no sealant or a different sealant in preventing pit and fissure caries on the occlusal surfaces of primary molars in children and to report the adverse effects and the retention of different types of sealants.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. Review authors scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group and split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a sealant with no sealant, or different types of sealants, for the prevention of caries in primary molars, with no restriction on follow-up duration. We included studies in which co-interventions such as oral health preventive measures, oral health education or tooth brushing demonstrations were used, provided that the same adjunct was used with the intervention and comparator. We excluded studies with complex interventions for the prevention of dental caries in primary teeth such as preventive resin restorations, or studies that used sealants in cavitated carious lesions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for the development of new carious lesions on occlusal surfaces of primary molars as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where studies were similar in clinical and methodological characteristics, we planned to pool effect estimates using a random-effects model where appropriate. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that randomised 1120 children who ranged in age from 18 months to eight years at the start of the study. One study compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with no sealant (139 tooth pairs in 90 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with no sealant (619 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with resin-based sealant (278 tooth pairs in 200 children); two studies compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with resin-based sealant (113 tooth pairs in 69 children); one study compared composite with fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant (40 tooth pairs in 40 children); and one study compared autopolymerised sealant with light polymerised sealant (52 tooth pairs in 52 children). Three studies evaluated the effects of sealants versus no sealant and provided data for our primary outcome. Due to differences in study design such as age of participants and duration of follow-up, we elected not to pool the data. At 24 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in the development of new caries lesions for the fluoride-releasing sealants or no treatment groups (Becker Balagtas odds ratio (BB OR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.42; 1 study, 85 children, 255 tooth surfaces). For glass ionomer-based sealants, the evidence was equivocal; one study found insufficient evidence of a difference at follow-up between 12 and 30 months (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 449 children), while another with 12-month follow-up found a large, beneficial effect of sealants (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.15; 107 children). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low, downgrading two levels in total for study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. We included six trials randomising 411 children that directly compared different sealant materials, four of which (221 children) provided data for our primary outcome. Differences in age of the participants and duration of follow-up precluded pooling of the data. The incidence of development of new caries lesions was typically low across the different sealant types evaluated. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low or very low for the outcome of caries incidence. Only one study assessed and reported adverse events, the nature of which was gag reflex while placing the sealant material.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of the evidence for the comparisons and outcomes in this review was low or very low, reflecting the fragility and uncertainty of the evidence base. The volume of evidence for this review was limited, which typically included small studies where the number of events was low. The majority of studies in this review were of split-mouth design, an efficient study design for this research question; however, there were often shortcomings in the analysis and reporting of results that made synthesising the evidence difficult. An important omission from the included studies was the reporting of adverse events. Given the importance of prevention for maintaining good oral health, there exists an important evidence gap pertaining to the caries-preventive effect and retention of sealants in the primary dentition, which should be addressed through robust RCTs.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Fluorides; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 35146744
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012981.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
METHODS
In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34398473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 -
Caries Research 2021The aim was to appraise the evidence on the performance of various means for the detection of incipient caries in vivo. Five databases of published and unpublished... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim was to appraise the evidence on the performance of various means for the detection of incipient caries in vivo. Five databases of published and unpublished research were searched for studies from January 2000 to October 2019. Search terms included "early caries" and "caries detection." Inclusion criteria involved diagnostic test accuracy studies for early caries detection in permanent and primary teeth. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment in duplicate. The review protocol was a priori registered in the Open Science Framework. Of the initially 22,964 search results, 51 articles were included. For permanent teeth, when histologic examination was considered as the reference for occlusal surfaces, the sensitivity (Se) range appeared high for the DIAGNOdent Pen (DD Pen) at 0.81-0.89, followed by ICDAS-II at 0.62-1, DIAGNOdent (DD) at 0.48-1, and bitewing radiography (BW) at 0-0.29. The corresponding specificity (Sp) range was: DD Pen 0.71-0.8, ICDAS-II 0.5-0.84, DD 0.54-1, and BW 0.96-1. When operative intervention served as the reference for occlusal surfaces, again, the DD means valued the most promising results on Se: DD 0.7-0.96 and DD Pen 0.55-0.90, followed by ICDAS-II 0.25-0.93, and BW 0-0.83. The Sp range was: DD 0.54-1, DD Pen 0.71-1, ICDAS-II 0.44-1, and BW 0.6-1. For approximal surfaces, the Se was: BW 0.75-0.83, DD Pen 0.6, and ICDAS-II 0.54; the Sp was: BW 0.6-0.9, DD Pen 0.2, and ICDAS-II 1. For primary teeth, under the reference of histologic assessment, the Se range for occlusal surfaces was: DD 0.55-1, DD Pen 0.63-1, ICDAS-II 0.42-1, and BW 0.31-0.96; the respective Sp was: DD 0.5-1, DD Pen 0.44-1, ICDAS-II 0.61-1, and BW 0.79-0.98. For approximal surfaces, the Se range was: DD Pen 0.58-0.63, ICDAS-II 0.42-0.55, and BW 0.14-0.71. The corresponding Sp range was: DD Pen 0.85-0.87, ICDAS-II 0.73-0.93, and BW 0.79-0.98. Se and Sp values varied, due to the heterogeneity regarding the setting of individual studies. Evidently, robust conclusions cannot be drawn, and different diagnostic means should be used as adjuncts to clinical examination. In permanent teeth, visual examination may be enhanced by DD on occlusal surfaces and BW on approximal surfaces. In primary teeth, DD Pen may serve as a supplementary tool across all surfaces.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Radiography, Bitewing; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 34130279
DOI: 10.1159/000516084 -
Archives of Oral Biology Jul 2023in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD), oral health can be affected by motor and non-motor symptoms and/or medication use. Therefore, the aim was to systematically... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD), oral health can be affected by motor and non-motor symptoms and/or medication use. Therefore, the aim was to systematically review the literature on oral health and associated factors of oral health in PD patients.
DESIGN
a literature search was performed from inception up to April 5th, 2023. Original studies that assessed oral health-related factors in PD patients and were written in English or Dutch, were included.
RESULTS
11276 articles were identified, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria (quality range poor-good). A higher prevalence of dental biofilm, bleeding/gingivitis, pocket depth (≥4 mm), tooth mobility, caries, and number of decayed missing filled teeth/surfaces was found in PD patients than in controls. However, no difference between both groups was found when analysing edentulism and wearing dentures. Poor oral health of PD patients was associated with a longer disease duration, higher disease severity, and more prescribed medications.
CONCLUSIONS
oral health of PD patients is worse than that of healthy individuals. It is associated with the duration and severity of PD and medication use. Therefore, we advise regular appointments with oral health care professionals, with an important focus on prevention.
Topics: Humans; Oral Health; Dental Caries; Parkinson Disease; Gingivitis; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 37120970
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2023.105712 -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023The demineralization process conditions the structure of the enamel and begins with a superficial decalcification procedure that makes the enamel surface porous and... (Review)
Review
The demineralization process conditions the structure of the enamel and begins with a superficial decalcification procedure that makes the enamel surface porous and gives it a chalky appearance. White spot lesions (WSLs) are the first clinical sign that can be appreciated before caries evolves into cavitated lesions. The years of research have led to the testing of several remineralization techniques. This study's objective is to investigate and assess the various methods for remineralizing enamel. The dental enamel remineralization techniques have been evaluated. A literature search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed. After screening, identification, and eligibility processes 17 papers were selected for the qualitative analysis. This systematic review identified several materials that, whether used singly or in combination, can be effective in the process of remineralizing enamel. All methods have a potential for remineralization when they come into contact with tooth enamel surfaces that have early-stage caries (white spot lesions). From the studies conducted in the test, all of the substances used to which fluoride has been added contribute to remineralization. It is believed that by developing and researching new remineralization techniques, this process might develop even more successfully.
PubMed: 37106659
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10040472 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Jan 2023This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse the incidence and prevalence of hamstring injuries in field-based team sports. A secondary aim was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse the incidence and prevalence of hamstring injuries in field-based team sports. A secondary aim was to determine the impact of other potential effect moderators (match vs training; sport; playing surface; cohort age, mass and stature; and year when data was collected) on the incidence of hamstring injury in field-based team sports.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Complete (EBSCO), Embase, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from database inception to 5 August 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Prospective cohort studies that assessed the incidence of hamstring injuries in field-based team sports.
METHOD
Following database search, article retrieval and title and abstract screening, articles were assessed for eligibility against predefined criteria then assessed for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Tool for prevalence studies. Meta-analysis was used to pool data across studies, with meta-regression used where possible.
RESULTS
Sixty-three articles were included in the meta-analysis, encompassing 5952 injuries and 7 262 168 hours of exposure across six field-based team sports (soccer, rugby union, field hockey, Gaelic football, hurling and Australian football). Hamstring injury incidence was 0.81 per 1000 hours, representing 10% of all injuries. Prevalence for a 9-month period was 13%, increasing 1.13-fold for every additional month of observation (p=0.004). Hamstring injury incidence increased 6.4% for every 1 year of increased average cohort age, was 9.4-fold higher in match compared with training scenarios (p=0.003) and was 1.5-fold higher on grass compared with artificial turf surfaces (p<0.001). Hamstring injury incidence was not significantly moderated by average cohort mass (p=0.542) or stature (p=0.593), was not significantly different between sports (p=0.150) and has not significantly changed over the last 30 years (p=0.269).
CONCLUSION
Hamstring injury represents 10% of all injuries in field-based team sports, with 13% of the athletes experiencing a hamstring injury over a 9-month period most commonly during matches. More work is needed to reduce the incidence of hamstring injury in field-based team sports.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020200022.
Topics: Humans; Athletic Injuries; Australia; Leg Injuries; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Soft Tissue Injuries; Team Sports
PubMed: 36455927
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104936