↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Playing Surface on Injury Rate

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
Title
The Effect of Playing Surface on Injury Rate
Published in
Sports Medicine, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/11535910-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason L. Dragoo, Hillary J. Braun

Abstract

Synthetic playing surfaces are widely used for field and court sports. Artificial turf surfaces are commonly used as an alternative to natural grass, while outdoor surfaces like clay and acrylic are also prevalent. The effect of these synthetic surfaces on injury rates has not been clearly established. The available literature is largely limited to football and soccer data and the majority of studies are short-term. Confounding variables such as climate, player position and footwear, as well as varying definitions of injury, also make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the general effect of artificial playing surfaces on injury rates. Many peer-reviewed studies cite a higher overall rate of injury on first- and second-generation artificial turf surfaces compared with natural grass. Despite differences in injury type, the rate of injury on third-generation and natural grass surfaces appears to be comparable. It also appears that clay is significantly safer than either grass or hard court tennis surfaces, but this is a conclusion drawn with limited data. Further research investigating overall injury trends as well as sport-specific data is needed to draw more definitive conclusions regarding the effect of artificial playing surfaces on injury rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 194 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 21%
Student > Master 34 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 13%
Researcher 16 8%
Lecturer 9 5%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 41 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 65 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Engineering 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 49 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 June 2023.
All research outputs
#6,753,656
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,083
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,304
of 189,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#399
of 761 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 189,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 761 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.