Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33748310›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021

Incidence of Head Contacts, Penalties, and Player Contact Behaviors in Youth Ice Hockey: Evaluating the "Zero Tolerance for Head Contact" Policy Change.

Rylen A Williamson, Ash T Kolstad, Maciej Krolikowski, Luc Nadeau, Claude Goulet, Brent E Hagel, Carolyn A Emery

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Whistleblower: the front line and critical facilitator for injury prevention policy?Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2025
    Article
  4. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rylen A WilliamsonSport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Ash T KolstadSport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Maciej KrolikowskiSport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Luc NadeauDepartment of Physical Education, Faculty of Education, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Claude GouletDepartment of Physical Education, Faculty of Education, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Brent E HagelSport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Carolyn A EmerySport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
University of Calgary · CAUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo reduce the risk of concussion in youth ice hockey, Hockey Canada implemented a national "zero tolerance for head contact" (HC) policy in 2011. A previous cohort study revealed higher concussion rates after this implementation in players aged 11 to 14 years. However, it is unknown whether the elevated risk was due to higher HC rates or factors such as increased concussion awareness and reporting. PURPOSE: To compare the rates of primary and secondary HCs and HC policy enforcement in elite U15 ice hockey leagues (players <15 years) before (2008-2009) and after (2013-2014) the zero-tolerance policy change. STUDY

designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

methodsA total of 32 elite U15 games before (n

resultsA total of 506 HCs were analyzed, 261 before HC policy implementation (IR, 16.6/100 team minutes) and 245 after implementation (IR, 15.5/100 team minutes). The HC1 rate (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28) and HC2 rate (IRR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50-1.11) did not significantly differ before versus after implementation. Only 12.0% and 13.6% of HC1s were penalized pre- and postimplementation, respectively. Before implementation, HC1s were commonly penalized as roughing or elbowing penalties (59%), while after implementation, HC1s were penalized with the HC penalty (76%), and only 8% as roughing or elbowing.

conclusionDespite implementation of the "zero tolerance for HC" policy, there was no difference in the rate of HC1s and HC2s or the proportion of HC1 penalized from before to after implementation. This research is instrumental in informing Hockey Canada's future referee training and rule enforcement modifications.

Indexed as

concussionhead contactice hockeypenaltyyouth

Identifiers

PMID33748310
PMCPMC7940749
OpenAlexW3135886475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.