|
Early attempts to compare injury rates on grass and
artificial turf often suffered major methodological problems, and
more often than not showed conflicting results because of these
problems, a reasonably large data set is now becoming available
through the Athletic Injury Monitoring System (AIMS). These data
come from a data collection system that meets design criteria for
reliable studies of sports injury rates as specified by the American
Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine. These data include the age
and brand of artificial surface, and allow for an indirect
comparison of injury rates on other synthetic surfaces.
The University of Nebraska data set is relatively
small, however it is supported by a five-year data set from a large
national sample of college football teams that shows a statistically
significant difference in injury rates for total injuries and for
knee injuries between AstroTurf® brand and grass surfaces, with
grass surfaces having the lower injury rates. While the data set is
still relatively small, it shows some differences between the injury
rates on grass and Fieldturf™ that are of rather large statistical
significance.
Assuming the data has been properly collected and
recorded, it provides a reasonable early indication that total injury
rates and knee injury rates on Fieldturf™ are significantly lower than
on grass surfaces. At worst, one could reasonably assume they will
eventually be shown to be essentially equivalent.
Data from The Expert Report of Eric D. Zemper. PH.D.
Exercise Research Associates of Oregon.
|
