ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics
Medical Attention Injuries in Cricket: A Systematic Review of Case Reports.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCricket, classified as noncontact game, has been shown to be associated with increased incidence of injury. Further the recent consensus update in cricket injury surveillance have updated the injury definitions which includes "Medical Attention" injuries. The purpose of this review was to systematically review the various case reports and studies reporting injuries in the game of cricket that fall under the gambit of medical attention injuries. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted online using PubMed and Google Scholar, as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Metaanalyses guidelines. Predefined eligibility criteria were applied, and the data thus compiled were analysed.
resultsA total of 32 studies reporting 43 players including 42 males and 1 female were included in the review. Bowling injuries were the most commonly reported injury. Impact injury was the most common mode with acute presentation in batting and fielding injury, whereas it was gradual onset mode with chronic presentation in bowling injuries. Head and neck injuries were the most common in batting injuries while extremity injuries were common in fielding and bowling injuries. No injuries were reported in umpires.
conclusionThe evidence provided, although not sufficient for any recommendation, it should alert the physicians and those concerned with the primary care of the cricketers to be vigilant of the eccentricity and severity of the injuries, their atypical presentation, mode, mechanism and trend, thereby being prepared for the unexpected presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.