| Title |
Perceived Links Between Playing Surfaces and Injury: a Worldwide Study of Elite Association Football Players
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine - Open, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40798-018-0155-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aimée C. Mears, Paul Osei-Owusu, Andy R. Harland, Alun Owen, Jonathan R. Roberts |
| Abstract |
Injuries in association football (soccer) are debilitating for players and can also be detrimental to the success of a team or club. The type or condition of a playing surface has been empirically linked to injuries, yet results are inconclusive. The overall purpose of this study was to analyse elite football players' perceived links between playing surfaces and injury from a worldwide cohort of players. The results of this study can help to inform areas for future playing surface research aimed at trying to alleviate user concerns and meet user (i.e. the player) needs. Quantitative data were collected from 1129 players across the globe to address the aim of this study. Ninety-one percent of players believed the type or condition of a surface could increase injury risk. Abrasive injuries, along with soreness and pain, were perceived to be greater on artificial turf. Surface type, surface properties and age were all potential risk factors identified by the players and linked to the playing surfaces. The results identified three areas where future research should be focussed to help develop surfaces that alleviate user concerns and meet user (i.e. player) needs: (i) current reporting of soreness, pain or fatigue as injuries, (ii) contribution of surface properties to injury; and (iii) surface experience of players from different countries differentiates their views of injury risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 29% |
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| France | 2 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 8 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 18% |
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 33 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 26 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 37 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,055,478
of 23,485,296 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#226
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,973
of 334,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,296 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.