ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2026
Head Acceleration Event Probabilities During Standardised Contact Drills in Academy Men's Rugby League.
Article in European journal of sport science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated head acceleration event (HAE) probabilities between common contact-drills in rugby league. Fifteen professional male academy players participated in three training sessions, completing standardised contact-drills while wearing custom-fitted iMGs, all sessions were filmed. HAE data (peak linear acceleration and peak angular acceleration) were captured, synchronised, and processed alongside video data. Binomial logistic regression and ordinal mixed-effect regression models were used to calculate overall and exceedance probabilities. Data included 1402 (93 ± 50 per player) contact-drill observations, of which 133 had HAEs ≥ 5 g (9 ± 8 per player). Substantial variability in probability for HAEs ≥ 5 g (1.3%-41.3%) was observed across drills. Standing wrestle had the highest HAE ≥ 5 g probability (41.3%; CI: 31.0%-52.3%), while tackle shield hits at 1 m had the lowest (1.3%; CI: 0.5%-3.4%). HAE probability was greater for tacklers than ball-carriers. Overall, probability of a HAE ≥ 25 g was < 1.1%. Standardised contact-drills varied in HAE probabilities, but chances of higher magnitude HAEs was low for all drills. Overall, the probability of a HAE during standardised contact-drills was low, although practitioners should consider the differences (i.e., the variability) in HAE probabilities when managing HAE training exposure.
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.