ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Prediction of injury risk in Chinese mine rescuers based on single factors and different threshold combinations of FMS and YBT.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to investigate the correlation between FMS and YBT indicators with injuries and to explore a single predictive threshold or combinations of thresholds for practical reference. Methods: Injury histories of 96 Datong rescue team members were collected via questionnaire, and multiple FMS and YBT indicators were assessed at the same site on different occasions. Data were organized and categorized using Excel and SPSS 29.0. Threshold values derived from relevant literature on comparable occupational groups adopted as reference standards, and statistical analyses (t-test, chi-square) were applied to examine the associations between functional indicators and injury, and to evaluate the validity of both individual and combined threshold criteria. Results: (1) Injuries primarily concentrated in the lumbar and knee regions, accounting for approximately 50% of total injuries. (2) There were highly significant differences between injured and uninjured groups in FMS scores and YBT bilateral reach distance difference ( Conclusion: (1) The threshold values for the overall scores of FMS and YBT can effectively predict injury risk. In contrast, the YBT bilateral reach distance difference demonstrates superior advantages. (2) The accuracy of combined predictions is higher, with the combination of an FMS 15 and YBT bilateral difference of 4 cm serving as the optimal standard.
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.