ReviewJournal of sport and health science2023
Lacrosse-related injuries in boys and girls treated in U.S. emergency departments, 2000-2016.
Review in Journal of sport and health science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Upper extremity lacrosse injuries presenting to United States emergency departments - 10 year review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Differences in Injury Rates by Competition Level Among Scholastic and Collegiate Female Lacrosse Athletes: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- Headgear mandates in high school girls' lacrosse: investigating differences in impact rates and game play behaviors.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Headgear use in girls' lacrosse-stakeholders not ready for change.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Dynamic Functional Ability in Lacrosse Players in Relation to Development of Sport-Related Onset of Musculoskeletal Pain.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLacrosse is one of the fastest-growing sports in the United States. Its rules regarding permitted contact differ by sex and age. There are no known studies using a nationally representative data set to analyze lacrosse injury patterns over several years by sex and age in the youth population.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System for youth aged 11-18 years who were treated for lacrosse-related injuries in U.S. emergency departments from 2000 to 2016. Based on our review of the case narratives, we created and coded a new injury-mechanism variable. We generated national estimates from 6406 cases.
resultsAn estimated 206,274 lacrosse-related injuries to youths aged 11-18 years were treated in U.S. emergency departments from 2000 to 2016. The rate of injuries per 10,000 significantly increased from 1.9 in 2000 to a peak of 5.3 in 2012 (p < 0.0001), followed by a significant decrease to 3.4 in 2016 (p = 0.020). Injury mechanism, body part injured, and diagnosis differed by sex. Boys were 1.62 times (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.25-2.09) more likely than girls to be injured by player-to-player contact. Girls were 2.21 times (95%CI: 1.96-2.49) more likely than boys to have non-contact injuries. Overall, as age increased, the percentage of injuries from lacrosse sticks decreased and player-to-player contact increased.
conclusionDespite additional protective regulations in the sport, lacrosse is an important source of injury where we continue to see differences by sex and age. This study supports the continuation, modification, and addition of rules aimed at reducing lacrosse injury risk.
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.