Risk Factors for Injury in Child and Adolescent Sport: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review of the literature is to identify risk factors and potential prevention strategies that may modify risk factors for injury in child and adolescent sport. DATA SOURCES: Seven electronic databases were searched to identify potentially relevant articles. A combination of Medical Subject Headings and text words were used (athletic injuries, sports injury, risk factors, adolescent, and child). STUDY SELECTION: This review is based on epidemiological evidence in which the data are original, an exposure and outcome are objectively measured, and an attempt is made to create a comparison group. Forty-five studies were selected for this review. DATA EXTRACTION: The data summarized include study design, study population, exposures, outcomes, and results. Estimates of odds ratios or relative risks were calculated where study data were adequate to do so. The quality of evidence is based on internal validity, external validity, and causal association. DATA SYNTHESIS: There is some evidence that potentially modifiable risk factors including poor endurance, lack of preseason training, and some psychosocial factors are important risk factors for injury in child and adolescent sport. Concerns with study design, internal validity, and generalizability persist. The evidence is consistent, however, with more convincing evidence from adult population studies. The evidence for nonmodifiable risk factors for injury in adolescent sport (ie, age, sex, previous injury) is consistent among studies. CONCLUSIONS: Sport participation and injury rates in child and adolescent sport are high. This review will assist in targeting the relevant groups and designing future research examining risk factors and prevention strategies in child and adolescent sport. Future clinical trials addressing modifiable risk factors to reduce the incidence of sports injury in this population are necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".