Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31970529›Full record

ReviewSports medicine - open2020

Quantifying the Collision Dose in Rugby League: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Critical Analysis.

Mitchell Naughton, Ben Jones, Sharief Hendricks, Doug King, Aron Murphy, Cloe Cummins

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine - open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Mitchell NaughtonSchool of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia. mnaught2@myune.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3389-6275
Ben JonesSchool of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Sharief HendricksCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Institute for Sport Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Doug KingSchool of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Aron MurphySchool of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Cloe CumminsSchool of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
University of Cape Town · ZAUniversity of New England · AUAuckland University of Technology · NZAustralian Football League · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollisions (i.e. tackles, ball carries, and collisions) in the rugby league have the potential to increase injury risk, delay recovery, and influence individual and team performance. Understanding the collision demands of the rugby league may enable practitioners to optimise player health, recovery, and performance.

objectiveThe aim of this review was to (1) characterise the dose of collisions experienced within senior male rugby league match-play and training, (2) systematically and critically evaluate the methods used to describe the relative and absolute frequency and intensity of collisions, and (3) provide recommendations on collision monitoring.

methodsA systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science) using keywords was undertaken. A meta-analysis provided a pooled mean of collision frequency or intensity metrics on comparable data sets from at least two studies.

resultsForty-three articles addressing the absolute (n) or relative collision frequency (n min

conclusionsVideo- and microtechnology-based methods have been utilised to quantify collisions in the rugby league with differential collision profiles observed between forward and back positional groups, and their distinct subgroups. The ball carry demands of forwards and backs were similar, whilst tackle demands were greater for forwards than backs. Microtechnology has been used inconsistently to quantify collision frequency and intensity. Despite widespread popularity, a number of the microtechnology devices have yet to be appropriately validated. Limitations exist in using microtechnology to quantify collision intensity, including the lack of consistency and limited validation. Future directions include application of machine learning approaches to differentiate types of collisions in microtechnology datasets.

Indexed as

Global Positioning systemMicrotechnologyRugbyTackle

Identifiers

PMID31970529
PMCPMC6976075
OpenAlexW3003822826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.