ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
An Analysis of Fencing Injuries in the United States: A 10-Year Database Review.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2025. 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.
- Epidemiology of acute sports injuries in Hong Kong elite fencing athletes: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected injury surveillance data.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2026Article
- Injury patterns and cumulative injury burden among U.S. competitive fencers: A survey.PloS one · 2026Article
- Experimental and quantitative observational research in fencing and wheelchair fencing: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Force-Sensing Finger Assessment in Elite Fencers: A Pilot Study with Clinical Translational Potential.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Fencing has maintained sustained popularity in the United States and internationally. However, there is limited information regarding acute injury patterns among fencing athletes. Purpose: To determine the prevalence of fencing injuries evaluated at emergency departments in the United States from 2013 to 2023 and analyze trends in diagnosis by demographics, mechanism of action, and disposition status. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiological study. Methods: The US Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database was queried in June of 2024 using the product code 3260-Fencing (activity/apparel/equipment). The analysis included descriptive statistics for diagnosis prevalence and demographics, univariate analysis utilizing diagnosis and demographic data, and a text analysis of the narrative descriptions. Results: From 2013 to 2023, 129 fencing-related injuries were reported from US emergency departments, representing an NEISS national estimate of 3418 (95% CI, 2200-4636). The most common age group affected was 11 to 15 years (35.7%), followed by 16 to 20 years (29.5%), with a median age of 16 years. Most injured individuals were White (49.65%) and male (56.5%). However, there was an upward trend in injuries among female athletes throughout the study. The most frequent injuries were strains or sprains (26.4%), lacerations (15.5%), fractures (11.6%), and contusions/abrasions (10.9%). Fracture prevalence was higher in females than males (14.4% vs 9.6%; Conclusion: Fencing injuries decreased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic but have since become more prevalent. Fractures were more prevalent among females, whereas males had a higher prevalence of lacerations. Understanding the epidemiology and nature of fencing injuries can help inform coaches, athletes, and health care providers about potential risks and injury prevention strategies.
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.