ArticleBMC public health2022
A profile of injuries suffered by female soldiers serving in the Australian Army.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFemale soldiers comprise an important component of any modern army, yet little research has been performed to investigate differences in the profiles of injuries reported by qualified female and male army personnel.
aimThe aim of this study was to compare injury rates and patterns between female and male soldiers of the Australian Regular Army (ARA).
methodsData pertaining to all injuries reported by ARA members over a two-year period were accessed from the SENTINEL database and analysed descriptively. Findings regarding injury patterns were reported by most common location, nature, mechanism, and activity being performed at the time of injury. Injury incidence rates (IR) were calculated based on population size, and injury incidence rate ratios (IRR) comparing female and male injury rates were determined.
resultsA total of 8750 injuries were recorded across the two-year time period (2018-2020) of the study (minor injuries: n = 1766 female, n = 6870 male; serious injuries: n = 19 female, n = 95 male). Higher incidence rates of minor injuries were reported for female soldiers (IR = 20.75 injuries/100 soldiers/year) when compared to male soldiers (IR = 13.60 injuries/100 soldiers/year), with an IRR of 1.53 [95% CI = 1.46-1.60]. More serious injuries were reported at a similar rate between female (IR = 0.22/100 soldiers/year) and male soldiers (IR = 0.21/100 soldiers/year), with an IRR of 1.05 [95% CI = 0.65-1.72]. Female soldiers tended to report more ankle injuries than male soldiers who reported more knee injuries. Physical training and combat training were the most common causes of injury for both sexes. DISCUSSION: There were subtle differences in body locations of minor injuries within female and male soldiers. Both minor and more serious injury profiles were otherwise similar between sexes. Therefore, strategies required to minimise injuries in female soldiers may be similar in many respects to strategies required for male soldiers but require some differences to account for the subtle differences in body locations of injury, and so to ensure effectiveness across all personnel.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.