IJE Advance Access originally published online on January 12, 2005
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(1):119-120; doi:10.1093/ije/dyh379
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IJE vol.34 no.1 © International Epidemiological Association 2005; all rights reserved.
Commentary |
Commentary: Mad New Zealanders, tape, and grease: assessing protective equipment for rugby union players
Montreal Children's Hospital, 2300 Tupper Street, C-538-C, Montreal, QC H3H1P3, Canada. E-mail: barry.pless@mcgill.ca
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
In the eyes of some, especially North Americans, what little they know of rugby union football, borders on playing field madness. Unlike armour-clad American football behemoths, rugby union players smash into one another with little or no protection against injury. Unfortunately, whatever protective equipment (PE) these players do use is not properly evaluated, and this is equally true for most sports.
The paper by Marshall et al. in this issue1 is the work of a highly qualified, international team. The findings provide modest support for some protective measures and relegate others to the status of talisman.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
G Davis, G Fabinyi, P Le Roux, and P McCrory Clinics in neurology and neurosurgery of sport. Mass lesions: cavernoma Br. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2009; 43(11): 866 - 868. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
