Shinguards effective in preventing lower leg injuries in football: Population-based trend analyses over 25 years.

OBJECTIVES: The majority of football injuries are caused by trauma to the lower extremities. Shinguards are considered an important measure in preventing lower leg impact abrasions, contusions and fractures. Given these benefits, Fédération Internationale de Football Association introduced the shinguard law in 1990, which made wearing shinguards during matches mandatory. This study evaluated the effect of the introduction of the shinguard law for amateur players in the Netherlands in the 1999/2000-football season on the incidence of lower leg injuries. DESIGN: Time trend analyses on injury data covering 25 years of continuous registration (1986-2010). METHODS: Data were retrieved from a system that records all emergency department treatments in a random, representative sample of Dutch hospitals. All injuries sustained in football by patients aged 6-65 years were included, except for injuries of the Achilles tendon and Weber fractures. Time trends were analysed with multiple regression analyses; a model was fitted consisting of multiple straight lines, each representing a 5-year period. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly males (92%) and treated for fractures (48%) or abrasions/contusions (52%) to the lower leg. The incidence of lower leg football injuries decreased significantly following the introduction of the shinguard law (1996-2000: -20%; 2001-2005: -25%), whereas the incidence of all other football injuries did not. This effect was more prominent at weekends/match days. No gender differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results significantly show a preventive effect of the shinguard law underlining the relevance of rule changes as a preventive measure and wearing shinguards during both matches and training sessions.

Epidemiological data and ranking home and leisure accidents for priority-setting.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how to use the multitude of available epidemiological data to rank accidents for prioritisation of prevention. METHODS: A stepwise method to rank accidents for priority-setting at any time is proposed. The first step is to determine the overall objectives of injury prevention. Based on these objectives, the relevant epidemiological criteria are determined. These criteria need to be weighed by experts in such a way that these weights can be used for every new cycle of priority-setting. Thus, every time the method is applied: first, the relevant types of accidents are identified; second, the epidemiological criteria are determined per type of accident; and third, the types of accidents are ranked by means of standardised weights per criterion. The proposed indirect method is illustrated by an empirical example. The results were compared with a direct method, i.e. ranking by an expert panel. RESULTS: In the pilot, we ranked four age groups of victims of a home and leisure accident: 0-4, 4-19 and 20-54 years of age, and victims aged 55 years or older. The resulting rankings differ largely per application; number one are victims older than 55 years or those of 20-54 years. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method enables a structured, transparent way to set priorities for home and leisure accidents. It is a promising method, although further development is clearly necessary, based on the actual application of the model.