ArticleSouth African journal of sports medicine2024
Contact load practices and perceptions in elite English rugby league: an evaluation to inform contact load guidelines.
Article in South African journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Head Acceleration Event Probabilities During Standardised Contact Drills in Academy Men's Rugby League.European journal of sport science · 2026Article
- Contributors to negative biopsychosocial outcomes in rugby players (CoNBO): part 1 the systematic review.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2026Article
- The Incidence of Head Acceleration Events During Pitch-Based Training and Match Play in Professional Men's Rugby League.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2025Article
- Beyond the Hit: Muscle and Vascular Tissue Responses to Contact Exposure in Collision Sports-A Narrative Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Athlete exposure to contact could be a risk factor for injury. Governing bodies should provide guidelines preventing overexposure to contact. Objectives: Describe the current contact load practices and perceptions of contact load requirements within men's and women's rugby league to allow the Rugby Football League (RFL) to develop contact load guidelines. Methods: Participants (n=450 players, n=46 coaching staff, n=32 performance staff, n=23 medical staff) completed an online survey of 27 items, assessing the current contact load practices and perceptions within four categories: "current contact load practices" (n=12 items), "perceptions of required contact load" (n = 6 items), "monitoring of contact load" (n=3 items), and "the relationship between contact load and recovery" (n=6 items). Results: During men's Super League pre-season, full contact and controlled contact training was typically undertaken for 15-30 minutes per week, and wrestling training for 15-45 minutes per week. During the in-season, these three training types were all typically undertaken for 15-30 mins per week. In women's Super League, all training modalities were undertaken for up to 30 minutes per week in the pre- and in-season periods. Both men's and women's Super League players and staff perceived 15-30 minutes of full contact training per week was enough to prepare players for the physical demands of rugby league, but a higher duration may be required to prepare for the technical contact demands. Conclusion: Men's and women's Super League clubs currently undertake more contact training during pre-season than in-season, which was planned by coaches and is deemed adequate to prepare players for the demands of rugby league. This study provides data to develop contact load guidelines to improve player welfare whilst not impacting performance.
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.