Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24797427›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Comparative cervical profiles of adult and under-18 front-row rugby players: implications for playing policy.

D F Hamilton, D Gatherer, J Robson, N Graham, N Rennie, J G B Maclean, A H R W Simpson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

D F HamiltonDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
D Gatherer
J Robson
N Graham
N Rennie
J G B Maclean
A H R W Simpson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the cervical isometric strength, fatigue endurance and range of motion of adult and under-18 age-grade front-row rugby players to inform the development of a safe age group policy with particular reference to scrummaging.

designCross-sectional cohort study.

setting'Field testing' at Murrayfield stadium.

participants30 high-performance under-18 players and 22 adult front-row rugby players. OUTCOME MEASURES: Isometric neck strength, height, weight and grip strength.

resultsYouth players demonstrated the same height and grip strength as the adult players; however, the adults were significantly heavier and demonstrated substantially greater isometric strength (p<0.001). Only two of the 'elite' younger players could match the adult mean cervical isometric strength value. In contrast to school age players in general, grip strength was poorly associated with neck strength (r=0.2) in front-row players; instead, player weight (r=0.4) and the number of years' experience of playing in the front row (r=0.5) were the only relevant factors in multivariate modelling of cervical strength (R(2)=0.3).

conclusionsExtreme forces are generated between opposing front rows in the scrum and avoidance of mismatch is important if the risk of injury is to be minimised. Although elite youth front-row rugby players demonstrate the same peripheral strength as their adult counterparts on grip testing, the adults demonstrate significantly greater cervical strength. If older youths and adults are to play together, such findings have to be noted in the development of age group policies with particular reference to the scrum.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFootballHumansMuscle StrengthNeck MusclesPhysical EnduranceNeckRugbySports Medicine

Identifiers

PMID24797427
PMCPMC4025467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.