THEMATIC ISSUE Consensus Statement on Injury Definitions and Data Collection Procedures for Studies of Injuries in Rugby Union C. W. Fuller,* M. G. Molloy,† C. Bagate,‡ R. Bahr,§ J. H. M. Brooks,¶ H. Donson,k S.P. T. Kemp,¶ P. McCrory,** A. S. McIntosh,†† W. H. Meeuwisse,‡‡ K. L. Quarrie,§§ M. Raftery,¶¶ and P. Wileykk Abstract: Wide variations in the definitions and methodologies used for studies of injuries in rugby union have created inconsis- tencies in reported data and made interstudy comparisons of results difficult. The International Rugby Board established a Rugby Injury Consensus Group (RICG) to agree on appropriate definitions and methodologies to standardize 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 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 finalized. At this stage, all authors confirmed their agreement with the consensus statement. The agreed- on document was presented to and approved by the International Rugby Board Council. Agreement was reached on definitions for injury, recurrent injury, nonfatal 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 method- ology 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 con- sistent and comparable results will be obtained from studies of injuries within rugby union. (Clin J Sport Med 2007;17:177–181) INTRODUCTION Wide variations in the definitions and methodologies used for investigations of injuries in rugby union have created inconsistencies in reported data, which has in turn limited the value of individual studies and severely restricted opportunities for making interstudy comparisons of results. Recent consen- sus statements on injury definitions and procedures for cricket 1 and football (soccer) 2 have demonstrated an international recognition of the benefits that are gained from the use of common definitions and methodologies. The aim of this consensus statement is to establish operational definitions and methodologies for studies of injuries in rugby union. METHOD A preliminary review of the consensus statement produced for cricket 1 identified that these proposals were cricket-specific and would not translate readily into the rugby union environment. The consensus statement from football, 2 however, showed similarities with definitions and methodol- ogies previously used in peer-reviewed publications of studies of rugby union injuries. The International Rugby Board (iRB) Medical Advisory Committee, therefore, established a Rugby Injury Consensus Group (RICG) to make a detailed assess- ment of the methodology proposed for football and to deter- mine whether these proposals could be adopted within rugby union and, if this was not possible, to develop proposals that were appropriate for rugby union. The RICG was composed of 7 voting members— namely, the Chief Medical Officer of the iRB, who acted as group Chairman, and representatives of 6 national rugby unions (3 from the Northern and 3 from the Southern Hemi- sphere). Six nonvoting members with experience in the study of injuries in a range of team sports were co-opted into the group to provide a wider perspective and a greater under- standing of the issues involved. Prior to the initial meeting in Dublin, each member of the RICG was provided with a copy of the football consensus statement 2 to ensure that they were familiar with the issues to be discussed. The recommendations proposed by Fink et al 3 for consensus group working were adopted during a 12 hour meeting. Each definition and meth- odological issue presented in the football consensus statement was introduced and discussed by the group. Depending on the outcome from these discussions, it was proposed that either the recommendation from the football consensus group should be accepted or alternative options were presented for con- sideration. Following this meeting, iterative draft consensus statements were prepared and each was circulated to members of the group for comment. A follow-up meeting was held in Dublin to finalize the definitions and procedures presented in this statement. At this stage, all authors confirmed their Submitted for publication October 24, 2006; accepted November 25, 2006. From the *University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom; †International Rugby Board, Dublin, Ireland; ‡Fe ´de ´ration Franc xaise de Rugby, Paris, France; §Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Oslo, Norway; {Rugby Football Union, Twickenham, United Kingdom; kSouth African Rugby Union, Newlands, South Africa; **University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; ††University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; §§New Zealand Rugby Football Union, Wellington, New Zealand; {{Australian Rugby Union, Sydney, Australia; and kkRugby Canada, Richmond Hill, Canada. Copyright Ó 2007 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Clin J Sport Med  Volume 17, Number 3, May 2007 177