SynthesisBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Risk and protective factors for musculoskeletal injury in youth track and field: a methodological scoping review.
Synthesis in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMusculoskeletal injuries are widespread among youth track and field athletes, largely due to the combined effects of growth, maturation, and escalating training loads. Yet, inconsistent definitions and measurement approaches for injuries, and for the factors that may increase or reduce risk, limit the comparability of findings across studies and impede progress toward effective prevention strategies.
objectivesTo identify risk and protective factors for musculoskeletal injuries in youth track and field athletes, and to examine how these injuries and associated factors have been defined, measured, and aligned with consensus methodological standards.
methodsThis scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR reporting standards. Five databases (PubMed
resultsA total of 54 studies were included. Injury definitions varied widely, encompassing time-loss, medical-attention, symptom-based, and diagnosis-confirmed approaches, with substantial heterogeneity in surveillance methods and exposure quantification (48 studies). Factors associated with musculoskeletal injury outcomes spanned intrinsic (e.g., previous injury, biomechanics, strength, bone health) and extrinsic domains (e.g., training load, footwear, environment), with diverse measurement techniques (27 studies). Reporting of consensus-based methodological components varied across studies. Injury-definition elements were reported in a greater proportion of studies than exposure and surveillance elements. Variation was observed in the reporting of exposure metrics, prospective monitoring approaches, and the inclusion of overuse injuries across studies.
conclusionsConsiderable methodological heterogeneity exists in youth track and field injury research. Greater adoption of consensus-based definitions, standardised exposure measures, and robust surveillance systems may improve comparability and support the development of injury prevention strategies. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U4BSY ).
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.