Injury surveillance in cricket
Injury surveillance in cricket
复制标题
板球运动损伤监测
DOI：
10.1136/bjsports-2012-092138
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
18.4
通讯作者：
J. Orchard
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Orchard
本期BJSM包含三个板球损伤监测研究，包括首次发表的多国监测项目。2005年，板球以微弱优势领先于足球和橄榄球联盟，发布了这项运动的第一份损伤定义共识声明。这两种声明的一个主要区别在于，板球声明的作者选择只关注比赛时间损失的伤害，而不是“所有报告的”伤害（足球和橄榄球联盟选择的观点）。板球声明关注比赛时间损失伤害的原因之一是，由于用于板球伤害监测的资源有限，如果报告要求减少，遵守规定可能会更容易。尽管如此，第一次多国研究花了8年时间（具有讽刺意味的是，时间损失和非时间损失的伤害都有报道）。这些年来，T20板球变得比以前更加突出，因此许多球员在一年中与不同的球队签订了多个合同，所以最初的定义可能是……
This issue of the BJSM contains three cricket injury surveillance studies, including the first published multicountry surveillance project. Cricket1 narrowly preceded football2 and rugby union3 to the publication of the sport's first consensus statement of injury definitions in 2005. A major distinction between the statements was that the authors of the cricket statement chose to focus on match time-loss injuries only4 rather than ‘all reported’ injuries5 ,6 (which was the perspective chosen by football and rugby union). One of the reasons for cricket statement focusing on the match time-loss injuries was that owing to limited resources being devoted to injury surveillance in cricket, compliance would presumably be easier if there were fewer reporting requirements. Despite this, it has taken 8 years for the first multicountry study7 (and ironically both time-loss and non-time-loss injuries have been reported). During these years, T20 cricket has become far more prominent than it was and consequently many players have multiple contracts with different teams in a given year, so the original definitions probably …