SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Neurodegenerative Disease and Association Football (NDAF): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Int J Environ Res Public Health · 2025-05-21

DOI: 10.3390/ijerph22050806PMID: 40427919

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

There is increasing concern that head injuries in Association Football (or soccer) may lead to adverse health outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine whether head impacts or injuries are associated with an increased risk of neurodegenerative disease. We performed a systematic search using PubMed, Embase, and Ovid (up to April 2025). Studies included investigated neurodegenerative diseases in football in comparison to control athletic and general populations. Data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies with an odds ratio (OR) were included in the meta-analysis. A total of ten studies were included in this review, of which nine were suitable for meta-analysis from eight cohorts. The risk for developing any neurodegeneration was 1.69 OR (95%CI 1.11 to 2.59; p = 0.01); for Dementia, it was 2.16 OR (95%CI 1.60 to 2.93; p p = 0.21); for Parkinson's Disease (PD), it was 1.14 OR (95%CI 0.55 to 2.89; p = 0.79). Heterogeneity was reduced following the removal of two studies and the revised risk scores for any neurodegenerative disease; Dementia increased, with that for MND reaching significance, 1.81 OR (95%CI 1.22 to 2.30; p = 0.01), but there remained no association with PD. Evidence suggests that professional football significantly increases the odds of neurodegenerative disease.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.