Systematic mapping review of player safety, sport science and clinical care in lacrosse

Abstract

ObjectiveThe objective is to comprehensively classify the types, topics and populations represented in the published lacrosse literature.DesignMapping review. Protocol registration at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kz4e6).Data sources10 electronic databases were searched from inception to 31 March 2023.Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed studies in English that included lacrosse were eligible. Publications without participant demographic or lacrosse-specific data were excluded.ResultsWe identified 498 articles pertaining to lacrosse, with 270 (54.2%) focused on player safety, 128 (25.7%) on sport science and 74 (14.9%) on clinical care. Musculoskeletal injury was the focus of 179 studies (35.9%), and the most common study design was cross-sectional (n=162, 32.5%). Most (n=423, 84.9%) originated in the USA. Over half (n=254, 51.0%) were published since 2017. 216 articles (43.4%) included female and male athletes, while 112 (22.5%) and 142 (28.5%) focused solely on female and male athletes, respectively. Collegiate athletes were the most frequent study population (n=277, 55.6%), and traditional field lacrosse was the focus of 298 (59.8%) articles. We observed that 77.1% (27/35) of quasiexperimental, 91.3% (21/23) of randomised controlled trials and 62.1% (18/29) of systematic reviews had a high or moderate risk of bias.ConclusionThe vast majority of lacrosse research originates from the USA, is in collegiate athletes, with a focus on player safety, and has a high risk of bias. With the sport’s inclusion in the 2028 Olympics and growing global participation, higher quality research studies that are more inclusive and adaptable to diverse athletic groups and changing gameplay parameters are needed.