The aim of this review was to provide insights into and a critical assessment of injury burden, risk matrices and risk contours in the context of team sports. Injury burden is the product of injury incidence and mean severity, and is normally reported as days’ absence/1000 player-hours. An important feature of injury burden is that equal values can reflect quite different numerical combinations of injury incidence and severity. The timeframe over which injury burden affects a team depends on the incidence and severity values of the injuries sustained. Injury burden is evaluated through the use of risk matrices and risk contours. The main benefits of using risk matrices, and the reasons for their widespread acceptance, are the minimal data inputs required, the ease of understanding the visual data presentation, the transparent nature of the evaluation criteria and the simplicity with which the conclusions can be communicated to stakeholders. Injury burden is most often used for the identification of injuries that cause the greatest loss of time for players, ranking the importance of injury risk factors and prioritising injury prevention plans. Although risk matrices are commonly used for evaluating risks during the risk assessment process, there is little evidence to demonstrate that they improve decision-making, as they have a number of limitations, including potential inconsistencies and discrepancies when evaluating and ranking risks. These limitations suggest that physicians, physiotherapists and sports scientists should only use injury burden, risk matrices and risk contours when they fully understand their strengths and weaknesses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.
Conflicts of Interest
Colin Fuller has provided consultancy services to World Rugby, the English Premier League, the Football Association and FIFA within the previous 5 years.
Fuller CW, Vassie LH. Health and Safety Management. Harlow, UK: Principles and Best Practice. FT Prentice Hall; 2004.Google Scholar
Health and Safety Executive. Successful Health & Safety Management. HS(G)65. HSE Books; Sudbury: 1993.Google Scholar
The Royal Society. Risk analysis. London: Perception & Management. The Royal Society; 1992.Google Scholar
Andrews JD, Moss TR. Reliability and risk assessment. Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical; 1993.Google Scholar
Kjellén U, Sklet S. Integrating analyses of the risk of occupational accidents into the design process. Part 1. A review of types of acceptance criteria and risk analysis methods. Safety Sci. 1995;18:215–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre for Environmental & Risk Management (CERM). Risk Ranking. CRR 131/1997. HSE Books; Sudbury: 1997.Google Scholar
Franks A, Whitehead R, Crossthwaite P, Small L. Applications of QRA in Operational Safety Issues. RR 025. HSE Books; Sudbury: 2002.Google Scholar
Williams S, Trewartha G, Kemp SPT, Brooks JHM, Fuller CW, Taylor AE, et al. Time loss injuries compromise team success in elite rugby union: a 7-year prospective study. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:651–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hislop MD, Stokes KA, Williams S, McKay CD, England ME, Kemp SPT, et al. Reducing musculoskeletal injury and concussion risk in schoolboy rugby players with a pre-activity movement control exercise programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:1140–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
England Professional Rugby Injury Surveillance Project Steering Group. England professional rugby injury surveillance project: 2015–2016 season report. Twickenham: Rugby Football Union; 2017.Google Scholar
Knowles SB, Marshall SW, Guskiewicz KM. Issues in estimating risks and rates in sports injury research. J Athletic Train. 2006;41:207–15.Google Scholar
Fuller CW, Ekstrand J, Junge A, Andersen TE, Bahr R, Dvorak J, et al. Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16:97–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Fuller CW, Molloy MG, Bagate C, Bahr R, Brooks JHM, Donson H, et al. Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures for studies of injuries in rugby union. Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17:177–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pluim BM, Fuller CW, Batt ME, Chase L, Hainline B, Miller S, et al. Consensus statement on epidemiological studies of medical conditions in tennis, April 2009. Clin J Sport Med. 2009;19:445–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Thomas P, Bratvold RB, Bickel JE. The risk of using risk matrices. SPE Economics and Management. 2014;6(2):56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruan X, Yin Z, Frangopol DM. Risk matrix integrating attitudes based on utility theory. Risk Analysis. 2015;35:1437–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bao C, Wu D, Wan J, Li J, Chen J. Comparison of different methods to design risk matrices from the perspective of applicability. Procedia Comput Sci. 2017;122:455–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li J, Bao C, Wu D. How to design rating schemes of risk matrices: a sequential updating approach. Risk Analysis. 2018;38:99–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
The Institute of Risk Management. A risk management standard. London: The Institute of Risk Management; 2002.Google Scholar
Sadigursky D, Braid JA, de Lira DNL, Machado BAB, Carneiro RJF, Colavolpe PO. The FIFA 11+ injury prevention program for soccer players: a systematic review. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehab. 2017;9:18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar