Mountain Training NetworkMountain Training NetworkReciprocity & Research
MTN main website2026 EDITION

Climbing · Research synthesis

The injuries that reach the ER.

What emergency-department records reveal about climbing injuries, with the limits kept in view.

4 min readReview record: October 16, 2026Version 0.1.1Published synthesis

Start with the question

Who appears in a climbing-injury surveillance dataset?

Source findingThe study describes climbing injuries recorded by a sample of U.S. emergency departments over ten years. The sampled records and their weighted national estimates are different quantities; neither is a count of every climbing injury.[1]

SynthesisThe record is useful for asking which injuries bring climbers to emergency care. It does not distinguish indoor from outdoor exposure or supply the participation hours needed to calculate a climber’s injury risk.[1]

MTN educational interpretationThe practical teaching connection is to build assessment and evacuation judgment around the setting and the patient. The study does not compare first-aid courses or establish that a particular course prevents the injuries it records.[1]

Study at a glance

Who—and what—was studied?

Population

1,306 NEISS records for people aged seven and older, 2014–2023. The analysis uses weighted estimates from the sampled emergency departments.

Design and setting

A retrospective U.S. emergency-department surveillance analysis; ice climbing and mountaineering were excluded.

Keep the boundaries visible

What this evidence cannot tell us.

  • Emergency-department presentations exclude injuries managed elsewhere or without medical care.
  • Indoor and outdoor exposure cannot be separated in this analysis.
  • There is no climbing-exposure denominator.
  • Appendix B80 remains inaccessible; no appendix-dependent claim is included.

Read the originals

Sources & review record.

  1. 1. Lin JQ et al. National Trends in Rock Climbing Injuries: A 10-Year Epidemiological Analysis of US Emergency Department Data (2014–2023). JBJS Open Access. 2026;11(1):e25.00137. doi:10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00137.

    FULL TEXT REVIEWED

    Methods: NEISS sampling and weighting; Variable: age and activity exclusions; Analysis: 1,306 included records; Limitations: ED-only capture and missing setting/exposure detail. Appendix B80 is outside this synthesis.

    Open original source ↗ (opens in a new tab)
    Access, attribution & rights notes

    Source audit supplied October 15, 2026. Displayed claims and source locations checked for publication October 16, 2026. This factual synthesis excludes unreviewed supplementary material and does not reproduce publisher artwork. Main-text sample, exclusions, weighting and limitations checked against the publisher text October 16, 2026.

    The source carries CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. This independent factual summary links to the source; it does not reproduce or adapt source prose, figures, tables or supplementary content.

    Review record: 2026-10-16. Article version: 0.1.1.

  2. 2. Lin et al., Appendix B80.

    INACCESSIBLE

    Publisher returned 402 during the source audit.

    Listed for access transparency; excluded from this synthesis.

    Open original source ↗ (opens in a new tab)
    Access, attribution & rights notes

    Excluded during the October 16, 2026 publication review. No displayed passage relies on this appendix.

    No content reproduced.

    Review record: 2026-10-16. Article version: 0.1.1.

How each passage is supported

Paragraph 1 · Source finding

Methods; results and Table I

Sources 1 · Version 0.1.1

Paragraph 2 · Synthesis

Methods and limitations

Sources 1 · Version 0.1.1

Paragraph 3 · MTN educational interpretation

Educational interpretation; no course-outcome comparison in the design

Sources 1 · Version 0.1.1