scholarly journals Risk Factors for Lower Limb Injury in Female Team Field and Court Sports: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Best Evidence Synthesis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler J. Collings ◽  
Matthew N. Bourne ◽  
Rod S. Barrett ◽  
William du Moulin ◽  
Jack T. Hickey ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (18) ◽  
pp. 1081-1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brady Green ◽  
Matthew N Bourne ◽  
Nicol van Dyk ◽  
Tania Pizzari

ObjectiveTo systematically review risk factors for hamstring strain injury (HSI).DesignSystematic review update.Data sourcesDatabase searches: (1) inception to 2011 (original), and (2) 2011 to December 2018 (update). Citation tracking, manual reference and ahead of press searches.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies presenting prospective data evaluating factors associated with the risk of index and/or recurrent HSI.MethodSearch result screening and risk of bias assessment. A best evidence synthesis for each factor and meta-analysis, where possible, to determine the association with risk of HSI.ResultsThe 78 studies captured 8,319 total HSIs, including 967 recurrences, in 71,324 athletes. Older age (standardised mean difference=1.6, p=0.002), any history of HSI (risk ratio (RR)=2.7, p<0.001), a recent HSI (RR=4.8, p<0.001), previous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury (RR=1.7, p=0.002) and previous calf strain injury (RR=1.5, p<0.001) were significant risk factors for HSI. From the best evidence synthesis, factors relating to sports performance and match play, running and hamstring strength were most consistently associated with HSI risk. The risk of recurrent HSI is best evaluated using clinical data and not the MRI characteristics of the index injury.Summary/conclusionOlder age and a history of HSI are the strongest risk factors for HSI. Future research may be directed towards exploring the interaction of risk factors and how these relationships fluctuate over time given the occurrence of index and recurrent HSI in sport is multifactorial.


2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (23) ◽  
pp. 1670-1678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liam A Toohey ◽  
Michael K Drew ◽  
Jill L Cook ◽  
Caroline F Finch ◽  
Jamie E Gaida

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (9) ◽  
pp. 476-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lionel Chia ◽  
Danilo de Oliveira Silva ◽  
Marnee J. McKay ◽  
Justin Sullivan ◽  
Fabio Micolis de Azevedo ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (20) ◽  
pp. 1312-1319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Asker ◽  
Hannah L Brooke ◽  
Markus Waldén ◽  
Ulrika Tranaeus ◽  
Fredrik Johansson ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo assess the evidence for risk factors and prevention measures for shoulder injuries in overhead sports.DesignSystematic review with best-evidence synthesis.Data sourcesMedline (Ovid), PubMed (complementary search), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane (Wiley), SPORTDiscus (Ebsco) and Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters), from 1 January 1990 to 15 May 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies on risk factors or prevention measures for shoulder injuries in overhead sports. The eligible studies were quality assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria.ResultsOf 4778 studies identified, 38 were eligible for quality review and 17 met the quality criteria to be included in the evidence synthesis. One additional quality study presented a shoulder injury prevention programme. Most studies focused on baseball, lacrosse or volleyball (n=13). The risk factors examined included participation level (competition vs training) (n=10), sex (n=4), biomechanics (n=2) and external workload (n=2). The evidence for all risk factors was limited or conflicting. The effect of the prevention programme within the subgroup of uninjured players at baseline was modest and possibly lacked statistical power.ConclusionsAll investigated potential risk factors for shoulder injury in overhead sports had limited evidence, and most were non-modifiable (eg, sex). There is also limited evidence for the effect of shoulder injury prevention measures in overhead sports.PROSPERO trial registration numberCRD42015026850.


2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason W Busse ◽  
Craig L Jacobs ◽  
Marc F Swiontkowski ◽  
Michael J Bosse ◽  
Mohit Bhandari

Author(s):  
Francis Q. S. Dzakpasu ◽  
Alison Carver ◽  
Christian J. Brakenridge ◽  
Flavia Cicuttini ◽  
Donna M. Urquhart ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Sedentary behaviour (SB; time spent sitting) is associated with musculoskeletal pain (MSP) conditions; however, no prior systematic review has examined these associations according to SB domains. We synthesised evidence on occupational and non-occupational SB and MSP conditions. Methods Guided by a PRISMA protocol, eight databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and AMED) and three grey literature sources (Google Scholar, WorldChat, and Trove) were searched (January 1, 2000, to March 17, 2021) for original quantitative studies of adults ≥ 18 years. Clinical-condition studies were excluded. Studies’ risk of bias was assessed using the QualSyst checklist. For meta-analyses, random effect inverse-variance pooled effect size was estimated; otherwise, best-evidence synthesis was used for narrative review. Results Of 178 potentially-eligible studies, 79 were included [24 general population; 55 occupational (incuding15 experimental/intervention)]; 56 studies were of high quality, with scores > 0.75. Data for 26 were meta-synthesised. For cross-sectional studies of non-occupational SB, meta-analysis showed full-day SB to be associated with low back pain [LBP – OR = 1.19(1.03 – 1.38)]. Narrative synthesis found full-day SB associations with knee pain, arthritis, and general MSP, but the evidence was insufficient on associations with neck/shoulder pain, hip pain, and upper extremities pain. Evidence of prospective associations of full-day SB with MSP conditions was insufficient. Also, there was insufficient evidence on both cross-sectional and prospective associations between leisure-time SB and MSP conditions. For occupational SB, cross-sectional studies meta-analysed indicated associations of self-reported workplace sitting with LBP [OR = 1.47(1.12 – 1.92)] and neck/shoulder pain [OR = 1.73(1.46 – 2.03)], but not with extremities pain [OR = 1.17(0.65 – 2.11)]. Best-evidence synthesis identified inconsistent findings on cross-sectional association and a probable negative prospective association of device-measured workplace sitting with LBP-intensity in tradespeople. There was cross-sectional evidence on the association of computer time with neck/shoulder pain, but insufficient evidence for LBP and general MSP. Experimental/intervention evidence indicated reduced LBP, neck/shoulder pain, and general MSP with reducing workplace sitting. Conclusions We found cross-sectional associations of occupational and non-occupational SB with MSP conditions, with occupational SB associations being occupation dependent, however, reverse causality bias cannot be ruled out. While prospective evidence was inconclusive, reducing workplace sitting was associated with reduced MSP conditions. Future studies should emphasise prospective analyses and examining potential interactions with chronic diseases. Protocol registration PROSPERO ID #CRD42020166412 (Amended to limit the scope)


2019 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
pp. 13-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Hamed Mousavi ◽  
Juha M. Hijmans ◽  
Reza Rajabi ◽  
Ron Diercks ◽  
Johannes Zwerver ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 ◽  
pp. 103097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa F.D. Canetti ◽  
Ben Schram ◽  
Robin M. Orr ◽  
Joseph Knapik ◽  
Rodney Pope

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document