Bibliometric analysis of racket sport-related injuries: global research landscape, hotspots, and trends

Objective This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of racket sport-related injury research, focusing on research progress, collaboration networks, hotspots, and thematic evolution. Drawing on the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and PubMed, the analysis covers 1,837 publications from 76 countries spanning from 2000 to 2025. Methods This study employed bibliometric methods combined with statistical analysis. Using CiteSpace 6.4.R1, VOSviewer 1.6.20, SCImago Graphica 1.0.53, and SPSS 26.0, quantitative and visual analyses were conducted on publication trends, geographical distribution, institutional distribution, country/region cooperation networks, core authors, journal distribution, keyword co-occurrences, research hotspots, the evolution of research topics, and highly cited papers. These analyses were supplemented by a correlation analysis, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, and a cluster analysis. Results The global publication volume of racket sport-related injury research exhibited a two-stage growth trend (fluctuating growth and rapid growth), with a significant acceleration after 2020. Geographically, the research was primarily concentrated in Europe, North America, and East Asia, with the United States (527 articles), China (199 articles), and the United Kingdom (152 articles) ranking as the top three in terms of publication quantity. The statistical analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between national 2025 GDP per capita and publication volume ( ρ = 0.538, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.351, 0.684]). Core research institutions were dominated by sports universities, sports medicine hospitals, and orthopedic research centers, with the Mayo Clinic (USA), University of Liege (Belgium), and Harvard University (USA) as the leading institutions. The international cooperation network was relatively sparse, with merely 15.1% of publications involving cross-national collaboration. The cluster analysis classified research hotspots into 13 core clusters, which were further aggregated into the following six interconnected research domains: epidemiological characteristics and injury prevention, sport-specific injury manifestations, chronic overuse injuries, acute traumatic injuries, imaging-based injury diagnosis, and rehabilitation of sports injuries. The dynamic evolution of research trends was classified into the following three phases: epidemiological investigation and traditional treatment, biomechanical mechanisms and standardized intervention, and intelligent technology and precision prevention. The Brit J Sport Med was a core journal source in the field. There were extremely significant differences in article count across three research themes ( χ 2 = 354.55, p < 0.001, Cramér's V = 0.54), with rehabilitation research differing significantly from both sport injury and injury prevention research. Conclusions To move this field forward, scholars should foster transnational interdisciplinary collaboration, expand comparative research across populations and racket sports, implement standardized injury-surveillance and load-management frameworks, and develop generalizable, systematic prevention-rehabilitation systems for racket sport participants.