↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass by male and female elite football players

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass by male and female elite football players
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, November 2011
DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01118.x
Pubmed ID
URN
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-67089
Authors

J. Ekstrand, M. Hägglund, C. W. Fuller

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare incidences and patterns of injury for female and male elite teams when playing football on artificial turf and grass. Twenty teams (15 male, 5 female) playing home matches on third-generation artificial turf were followed prospectively; their injury risk when playing on artificial turf pitches was compared with the risk when playing on grass. Individual exposure, injuries (time loss) and injury severity were recorded by the team medical staff. In total, 2105 injuries were recorded during 246,000 h of exposure to football. Seventy-one percent of the injuries were traumatic and 29% overuse injuries. There were no significant differences in the nature of overuse injuries recorded on artificial turf and grass for either men or women. The incidence (injuries/1000 player-hours) of acute (traumatic) injuries did not differ significantly between artificial turf and grass, for men (match 22.4 v 21.7; RR 1.0 (95% CI 0.9-1.2); training 3.5 v 3.5; RR 1.0 (0.8-1.2)) or women [match 14.9 v 12.5; RR 1.2 (0.8-1.8); training 2.9 v 2.8; RR 1.0 (0.6-1.7)]. During matches, men were less likely to sustain a quadriceps strain (P=0.031) and more likely to sustain an ankle sprain (P=0.040) on artificial turf.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 233 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 58 24%
Student > Master 34 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 12%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 52 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 77 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 6%
Engineering 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 62 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,526,614
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
#845
of 2,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,624
of 248,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
#5
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 248,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.