Evidence Hub

Prevention strategies and modifiable risk factors for sport-related concussions and head impacts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

P. Eliason, J. Galarneau, A. Kolstad, M. P. Pankow, Stephen W. West, S. Bailey, Lauren N. Miutz, A. Black et al.

British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2023

64 participants · 148 citations

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate prevention strategies, their unintended consequences and modifiable risk factors for sport-related concussion (SRC) and/or head impact risk. Design This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019152982) and conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources Eight databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane (Systematic Review and Controlled Trails Registry), SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, ERIC0 were searched in October 2019 and updated in March 2022, and references searched from any identified systematic review. Eligibility criteria Study inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) original data human research studies, (2) investigated SRC or head impacts, (3) evaluated an SRC prevention intervention, unintended consequence or modifiable risk factor, (4) participants competing in any sport, (5) analytic study design, (6) systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included to identify original data manuscripts in reference search and (7) peer-reviewed. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) review articles, pre-experimental, ecological, case series or case studies and (2) not written in English. Results In total, 220 studies were eligible for inclusion and 192 studies were included in the results based on methodological criteria as assessed through the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network high (‘++’) or acceptable (‘+’) quality. Evidence was available examining…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 64 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free