This paper provides a large-scale, per Major League Baseball (MLB) game analysis of foul ball (FB) injury data and provides estimates of injury frequency and severity.

This study’s goal was to quantify and describe the rate and type of FB injuries at MLB games.

This was a retrospective review of medical care reports for patients evaluated by on-site health care providers (HCPs) over a non-contiguous 11-year period (2005-2016). Data were obtained using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Data were received from three US-based MLB stadiums.

The review reported 0.42-0.55 FB injuries per game that were serious enough to warrant presentation at a first aid center. This translated to a patients per 10,000 fans rate (PPTT) of 0.13-0.23. The transport to hospital rate (TTHR) was 0.02-0.39. Frequently, FB injuries required analgesics but were overwhelmingly minor and occurred less often than non-FB traumatic injuries (5.2% versus 42%-49%). However, FB injured fans were more likely to need higher levels of care and transport to hospital (TH) as compared to people suffering other traumatic injuries at the ballpark. Contusions or head injuries were common. Finally, FB injured fans were often hit in the abdomen, upper extremity, face, or head. It was found that FB injuries appeared to increase with time, and this increase in injuries aligns with the sudden increase in popularity of smartphones in the United States.

These data suggest that in roughly every two or three MLB games, a foul ball causes a serious enough injury that a fan seeks medical attention. This rate is high enough to warrant attention, but is comparable in frequency to other diagnostic categories. Assessing the risk to fans from FBs remains difficult, but with access to uniform data, researchers could answer persistent questions that would lead to actionable changes and help guide public policy towards safer stadiums.

To compare actual patient presentation rates from Belgium’s largest public open-air cultural festival with predictions provided by existing models and the Belgian Plan Risk Manifestations model.

Retrospectively, actual patient presentation rates gathered from the Ghent Festivities (Belgium) during 2013–2019 were compared to predicted patient presentation rates by the Arbon, Hartman, and PRIMA models.

During 7 editions, 8673000 people visited the Ghent Festivities; 9146 sought medical assistance resulting in a mean patient presentation rate (PPR) of 1.05. The PRIMA model overestimated the number of patient encounters for each occasion. The other models had a high rate of underprediction. When comparing deviations in predictions between the PRIMA model to the other models, there is a significant difference in the mean deviation (Arbon: T = 0.000, P < 0.0001, r = −0.8701; Hartman: T = 0.000, P < 0.0001, r = −0.869).

Despite the differences between the predictions of all 3 models, our results suggest that the PRIMA model is a valid tool to predict patient presentations to IEHS during public cultural MG. However, to substantiate the PRIMA model even further, more research is needed to further validate the model for a broad range of MG.