Occurrence of acute respiratory illnesses in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Estimating the occurrence of acute respiratory illness (ARI) in athletes is crucial for understanding the need for preventive measures. This study aimed to estimate the occurrence of ARIs in athletes compared to non-athlete controls. We evaluated which of the published studies on the occurrence of ARI in athletes were eligible, giving due consideration to the epidemic nature of viral ARIs. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science databases from January 1990 to May 2023. Only studies reporting the occurrence of ARIs in athletes, with a duration of at least 12 months and simultaneously employing non-athlete controls, were included. The random effects model was used to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of ARI in athletes compared to non-athlete controls, with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Our search yielded 218 results, of which 6 studies met the essential criteria for viral ARIs and were included in our metaanalysis. Since the exact number of ARIs was not reported in many studies, we had to estimate the total number of ARIs for both athletes and non-athlete controls. The occurrence of ARIs was 1.87 times higher in athletes compared to non-athlete controls (3.2 vs 1.7, pooled IRR 1.87, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.26). Publication bias analysis or a funnel plot was not evaluated because the primary objective of none of the studies was to determine the occurrence of ARI in athletes. Most of the studies on the occurrence of ARIs in athletes had a duration of less than 12 months and did not include a concurrent control group, making them ineligible considering the seasonal and contagious nature of ARIs. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that athletes suffer from significantly more ARIs than non-athletic subjects. Our observations highlighted the lack of high-quality long-term studies on the occurrence of ARIs in athletes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.