Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Badminton-related eye injuries: a systematic review
  1. Annette K Hoskin1,2,
  2. Stephanie Watson1,
  3. Tengku A Kamalden3
  1. 1Save Sight Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Lions Eye Institute, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
  3. 3Department of Ophthalmology, University of Malaya Eye Research Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Tengku A Kamalden, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Malaya Eye Research Centre, Kuala Lumpur, 59100, Malaysia; t.ain.kamalden{at}ummc.edu.my

Abstract

Objectives To report the nature of badminton-related eye injuries in the published literature.

Methods A review of the literature with key word and MeSH terms: ‘Eye injury’, ‘Ocular trauma’, ‘Badminton’ ‘Shuttlecock’ using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Informit Health Collection databases. Papers were reviewed to assess the circumstances of the injury, patient demographics and clinical data.

Results 19 studies from 1974 to 2020 from 12 countries reported 378 monocular badminton-related eye injuries from 378 patients with a male-to-female ratio of 2.5:1. A closed globe injury was sustained in 97% of eyes and a shuttlecock responsible for 85% of injuries. Doubles play, the shuttlecock and a lack of eye protection were associated with eye injury.

Conclusion Vision impairment was associated with the majority of badminton-related eye injuries, and doubles play, the shuttlecock and a lack of eye protection were risk factors.

  • Ocular Injury
  • Recreation / Sports
  • Epidemiology

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors AKH and SW concieved the study. AKH and TAK conducted the search and analysis. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and agreed on the final version. AKH, SW and TAK are guarantors to the contents of this manuscript.

  • Funding AKH is a recipient of an NHMRC PhD Scholarship. SW is Sydney Medical School Foundation Fellow.

  • Competing interests AKH is an employee of EssilorLuxottica.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.