The incidence of injury in male field hockey players: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Few studies have investigated injury incidence in field hockey. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the incidence and characteristics of injury in male field hockey athletes. Prognosis systematic review with meta-analysis. MEDLINE via PubMed; EMBASE via Ovid; CINAHL via EBSCO; SPORTDiscus; and Web of Science were searched. Prospective studies and retrospective studies employing video analysis, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals, expressing the incidence of injury in male field hockey athletes were included. Studies must have been of a duration of a minimum one season or one tournament. Studies were screened by two authors, assessing the eligibility of each record. Following selection of the studies, data were extracted by the two authors. Levels of heterogeneity were assessed in aggregate data using the I2 statistic. In total, 1722 records were identified. Twelve studies were included in the review. Injury incidence ranged from 4.5 to 57.9/1000h (I2 = 98.5%). Nine studies were undertaken in tournament settings, with the remaining three conducted in club-based athletes in season-long settings. When a medical attention definition was used, there was a pooled incidence rate of 48.1/1000h, all in tournament studies. Contusions and muscle strains were the most frequently reported injury types, while the lower limb was the most common site of injury. Contact injuries were most common in tournament-based studies, while non-contact was more common in season-long studies. Prospective, season-long epidemiological studies investigating injury incidence in field hockey are lacking. •Studies investigating the incidence of injury in male field hockey athletes are lacking, and those that have been conducted display high levels of heterogeneity.•There are important differences in injury characteristics incurred by athletes in a tournament-setting and those incurred during a club-season.•Developing a consensus statement on data collection procedures is vital to reduce the levels of heterogeneity between studies.