Objective The objective is to comprehensively classify the types, topics and populations represented in the published lacrosse literature. Design Mapping review. Protocol registration at Open Science Framework (). Data sources 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to 31 March 2023. Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed studies in English that included lacrosse were eligible. Publications without participant demographic or lacrosse-specific data were excluded. Results We identified 498 articles pertaining to lacrosse, with 270 (54.2%) focused on player safety, 128 (25.7%) on sport science and 74 (14.9%) on clinical care. Musculoskeletal injury was the focus of 179 studies (35.9%), and the most common study design was cross-sectional (n=162, 32.5%). Most (n=423, 84.9%) originated in the USA. Over half (n=254, 51.0%) were published since 2017. 216 articles (43.4%) included female and male athletes, while 112 (22.5%) and 142 (28.5%) focused solely on female and male athletes, respectively. Collegiate athletes were the most frequent study population (n=277, 55.6%), and traditional field lacrosse was the focus of 298 (59.8%) articles. We observed that 77.1% (27/35) of quasiexperimental, 91.3% (21/23) of randomised controlled trials and 62.1% (18/29) of systematic reviews had a high or moderate risk of bias. Conclusion The vast majority of lacrosse research originates from the USA, is in collegiate athletes, with a focus on player safety, and has a high risk of bias. With the sport’s inclusion in the 2028 Olympics and growing global participation, higher quality research studies that are more inclusive and adaptable to diverse athletic groups and changing gameplay parameters are needed. Data are available in a public, open access repository. Appendices for this manuscript are available on Open Science Framework () and are linked to our original a priori protocol. All included articles in this mapping review, with data coding, are available online (appendix 1). Unfilled JBI checklists are available online (appendix 2). Completed JBI checklists for all included articles are available online (appendix 3).

中文翻译：

---

对长曲棍球运动员安全、运动科学和临床护理的系统映射审查


目标 目标是对已发表的长曲棍球文献中所代表的类型、主题和人群进行全面分类。设计绘图审查。在开放科学框架 () 上注册协议。数据来源 从成立到 2023 年 3 月 31 日，检索了 10 个电子数据库。 资格标准 包括长曲棍球在内的英文同行评审研究符合资格。没有参与者人口统计或长曲棍球特定数据的出版物被排除在外。结果 我们发现了 498 篇与长曲棍球相关的文章，其中 270 篇 (54.2%) 关注运动员安全，128 篇 (25.7%) 关注运动科学，74 篇 (14.9%) 关注临床护理。肌肉骨骼损伤是 179 项研究 (35.9%) 的重点，最常见的研究设计是横断面研究 (n=162, 32.5%)。大多数（n=423，84.9%）源自美国。超过一半（n=254，51.0%）是自 2017 年以来发表的。216 篇文章（43.4%）涉及女性和男性运动员，而 112 篇（22.5%）和 142 篇（28.5%）分别只关注女性和男性运动员。大学运动员是最常见的研究人群（n=277，55.6%），传统长曲棍球是 298 篇文章（59.8%）的焦点。我们观察到 77.1% (27/35) 的准实验、91.3% (21/23) 的随机对照试验和 62.1% (18/29) 的系统评价存在高或中度偏倚风险。结论 绝大多数长曲棍球研究源自美国，针对大学运动员，关注运动员安全，存在较高的偏见风险。随着这项运动被纳入 2028 年奥运会并且全球参与度不断提高，需要更具包容性并适应不同运动团体和不断变化的游戏参数的更高质量的研究。数据可在公共、开放访问存储库中获取。 本手稿的附录可在开放科学框架 () 上找到，并链接到我们原始的先验协议。本次地图审查中包含的所有文章以及数据编码均可在线获取（附录 1）。未填写的 JBI 清单可在线获取（附录 2）。所有包含的文章的完整 JBI 清单可在线获取（附录 3）。