Eighty-seven percent of time-loss groin injuries in elite Gaelic football involve a single clinical entity: a 9-season, prospective, epidemiology study


Abstract

Groin injuries are a common occurrence in field sports. However, the use of different terminology makes it difficult for practitioners to source information regarding rates, time-loss patterns, and risk factors associated with specific groin injuries. The current student aimed to apply the agreed Doha terminology and definitions in groin pain in athletes to audit time-loss groin injuries in elite Gaelic football. The GAA National Injury Surveillance Database between 2008 to 2015 received forty-three datasets from seventeen teams. Groin injuries accounted for 14% (95% CI 12.1 – 16.8) of reported injuries and 18% (95% CI 9.8 – 26.1) of total time-loss. Overall 15% (95% CI 13.2 – 16.8) of players sustained a groin injury each season. Adductor-related groin pain was the most frequent groin injury (38.2%; 95% CI 32.8 – 44.0). Groin injury incidence was 1.4 per 1000 exposure hours (95% CI 1.2 – 1.5). Incidence was 7.2 (95% CI 5.6 – 9.3) times higher in match-play than in training. Elite Gaelic football teams sustained 6.0 (IQR 3 – 9) groin injuries each season. Mean time-loss from sport was 28.9 (95% CI 22.4 – 35.9) days equating to 202 (95% CI 154.6 – 265.6) days per team each season. Previously injured players were more likely to sustain a groin injury (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.1 – 2.4). Risk of future injury varied between classification sites. Groin injury incidences and injury burden were lower among division one teams (p<0.05). Groin injuries are a common occurrence in elite Gaelic football that compromise player availability and elevate future injury risk. Management and prevention of groin injuries should consider the reported trends of specific groin injuries associated with the utilised classification system.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.