The prevalence and incidence of fencing injuries and associated risk factors : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To summarize the prevalence, incidence, and factors associated with fencing injuries among able-bodied (AFs) and wheelchair fencers (WFs). Data Sources: Literature was searched on 7 databases from inception to June 30, 2023. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and conducted risk of bias assessments and meta-analyses. Studies were included if they reported the prevalence/incidence of fencing injuries/pain, and associated factors with relevant statistics in AFs or WFs. The quality of evidence of all factors was evaluated by GRADE. Main Results: In total, 19 out of 298 identified studies were included. These included studies demonstrated very low to moderate methodological quality. Eight included studies investigated the prevalence of fencing injuries in 1151 AFs, while 11 studies reported its incidence in 164 485 AFs and 14 WFs. The prevalence of fencing injuries in AFs ranged from 51.5% to 92.8%. Professional fencers had higher injury rates than nonprofessional counterparts. Moderate-quality evidence supported that older age, more fencing experiences, and Functional Movement Screen scores <15 were independently related to a higher prevalence of fencing injuries among nonprofessional AFs. Very low-quality evidence showed that male sabreurs, higher competitive levels, and regular involvement in fitness programs were associated with more fencing injuries in AFs. Very low-quality evidence suggested that older age and sabreurs were risk factors for fencing injuries in AFs, while poor trunk control was a risk factor for fencing injuries in WFs. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to reveal the high prevalence and incidence of fencing injuries among AFs and WFs. However, the insufficient evidence regarding risk factors for these injuries highlights the importance of conducting prospective studies to investigate potential environmental, physical, and psychological risk factors for fencing injuries among AFs and WFs. Future research should also investigate the mechanisms underlying fencing injuries in AFs and WFs.