Rowing injuries in one female NCAA Division I team: 52% of rowers injured over 5 years, 38% of them at the lower back, 23% ribs, 16% hip–groin
And the literature is too heterogeneous to rank sites with confidence
Participants
n=92 injured female NCAA Division I rowers (of 176 on the roster) with 137 injuries recorded in an institutional registry over 5 years; plus a systematic review of 10 studies reporting injuries per body site in rowers.
Key Findings
Injury risk 52% (92/176 rowers injured over 5 years). Among the 92 injured, 38% had a lower-back injury, 23% ribs and 16% hip–groin.
Systematic review: 10 studies, all level IV, mean MINORS score 13.2 (range 9–15; fair quality). Most (8/10, 80%) reported lower-spine injuries, whereas ribs or other sites were reported in ≤4 (40%) studies.
Injury definitions, occurrence measures and site descriptions were so heterogeneous that meta-analysis was precluded and no conclusion can be drawn about the most common rowing injuries from current evidence; the literature focuses mostly on the lower back.
Practical Application
In one female NCAA D1 team, half the roster (52%) was injured over 5 years, with the lower back (38% of injured rowers), ribs (23%) and hip–groin (16%) the leading sites. Prioritise prehab at the lower back first, then ribs and hip–groin — while remembering the authors' own caveat that the wider literature cannot yet rank sites reliably.
Limitations
One female collegiate team plus a heterogeneous, fair-quality literature (level IV); absolute rates and site mix vary by sex, level and sweep vs scull; percentages are shares of injured athletes, not incidence per exposure; no data on injury type (overuse vs acute) or training volume in the abstract.
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Predominantly overuse" and "injury rate rose with training volume" removed — neither is in the abstract; the study reports site distribution only.
"Hip/knee" -> hip–groin (16%); added 52% injury risk, 137 injuries / 92 injured of 176, 38% / 23%, the systematic-review quality data (10 studies, level IV, MINORS 13.2) and the authors' conclusion that sites cannot be ranked from current evidence.