Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 632

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures for studies of injuries in rugby union

Open access
Fuller, Colin W, Molloy, Michael G, Bagate, Christian, Bahr, Roald, Brooks, John H M, Donson, Hilton, Kemp, Simon P T, McCrory, Paul, McIntosh, Andrew S, Meeuwisse, Willem H, Quarrie, Kenneth L, Raftery, Martin, Wiley, Preston·2007·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Wide variations in the definitions and methodologies used for studies of injuries in rugby union have created inconsistencies in reported data and made interstudy comparisons of results difficult. The International Rugby Board established a Rugby Injury Consensus Group (RICG) to reach an agreement on the appropriate definitions and methodologies to standardise the recording of injuries and reporting of studies in rugby union. The RICG reviewed the consensus definitions and methodologies previously published for football (soccer) at a meeting in Dublin in order to assess their suitability for and application to rugby union. Following this meeting, iterative draft statements were prepared and circulated to members of the RICG for comment; a follow-up meeting was arranged in Dublin, at which time all definitions and procedures were finalised. At this stage, all authors confirmed their agreement with the consensus statement. The agreed document was presented to and approved by the International Rugby Board Council. Agreement was reached on definitions for injury, recurrent injury, non-fatal catastrophic injury, and training and match exposures, together with criteria for classifying injuries in terms of severity, location, type, diagnosis and causation. The definitions and methodology presented in this consensus statement for rugby union are similar to those proposed for football. Adoption of the proposals presented in this consensus statement should ensure that more consistent and comparable results will be obtained from studies of injuries within rugby union.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsm.2006.033282

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 632

Metadata

Authors
Fuller, C. W., Molloy, M. G., Bagate, C., Bahr, R., Brooks, J. H. M., Donson, H., Kemp, S. P. T., McCrory, P., McIntosh, A. S., Meeuwisse, W. H., Quarrie, K. L., Raftery, M., & Wiley, P.
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-04-23
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
328-331
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2117840007
Cited by
632
References
3
FWCI
18.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures for studies of injuries in rugby union. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjsm.2006.033282
The paper
Fuller, C. W., Molloy, M. G., Bagate, C., Bahr, R., Brooks, J. H. M., Donson, H., Kemp, S. P. T., McCrory, P., McIntosh, A. S., Meeuwisse, W. H., Quarrie, K. L., Raftery, M., & Wiley, P. (2007). Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures for studies of injuries in rugby union. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2006.033282

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.