Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34635999›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine - open2021

Screening Tools as a Predictor of Injury in Gymnastics: Systematic Literature Review.

Ross Armstrong, Nicola Relph

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Risk Factors Associated with Grip Lock Injuries in Artistic Gymnasts: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Biomechanics of landing in gymnasts: a scoping review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ross ArmstrongRehabilitation and Healthy Lives Research Group, Institute of Health, University of Cumbria, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA1 2HH, England. ross.armstrong@cumbria.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8424-6854
Nicola RelphPromoting Population Musculoskeletal Health Research Group, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3323-3444
Edge Hill University · GBUniversity of Cumbria · GB

Funding

University of Cumbria Research Internal Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGymnastics requires a high level of physical ability and technical skill which utilises short sets of athleticism and artistry to perform complex and intense movements which can overload musculoskeletal tissues and result in acute injuries which can develop into chronic injuries. The aim of this systematic literature review was to investigate which screening tools predict injury in gymnasts and encompasses all genres, levels and ages.

methodsAn electronic search of seven databases from their inception until March 2021 was conducted. The databases were the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SPORTDiscus and PEDro (the Physiotherapy Evidence Base). A combination of the following search terms was used: (1) Gymnastics AND injury AND Screening, (2) Screening AND Gymnastics and (3) Musculoskeletal AND Screening AND Gymnastics. These terms were searched in all text, abstract, title and subject terms. Studies were assessed using a 20-point scoring tool.

resultsThe mean methodological quality score was 13.1 points (range 10-17 points). Range of motion, anthropometric and postural measurements, hypermobility, clinical diagnostic tests, movement screening tools, muscle strength, power and endurance were reported in the included studies. Some evidence existed for screening measurement of height and mass as taller and heavier gymnasts might be more susceptible to injury; however, the different methodologies utilised and lack of acknowledgment of confounding variables limit the clinical relevance of these findings.

conclusionsHeight and mass should be recorded during the screening process. A lack of heterogeneity in study methodology prevented a meta-analysis. Studies were limited by a lack of prospective injury design, poor injury definition, self-reporting of injury and only 2 studies reported reliability of screening tools. Further research is required to determine the role of injury screening in gymnastics. Registration: The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42020218339.

Indexed as

Body mass indexGymnasticsHeightInjuryPainWeight

Identifiers

PMID34635999
PMCPMC8505578
OpenAlexW3203568134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.