Modifiable risk factors for patellar tendinopathy in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis identifying (1) potential modifiable risk factors and (2) associated modifiable factors for patellar tendinopathy in athletes. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and grouped based on study design. Meta-analytic statistics were performed for items reported by five or more studies. A strength of evidence rating is provided for items not appropriate for meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cinahl were searched on 14 November 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative, original research reporting potential modifiable risk factors or associated factors, comparing athletes with patellar tendinopathy with a group without the injury. RESULTS: 862 records were screened and 31 articles were included (6 prospective, 25 cross-sectional). There was a lack of strong evidence for any potential modifiable risk factor or associated factors. There was limited or conflicting evidence that decreased ankle dorsiflexion range of motion, decreased posterior thigh and quadriceps flexibility, greater volume of jump training, more volleyball sets played per week, greater countermovement jump (CMJ) height and greater activity volume are potential modifiable risk factors. Meta-analysis supported greater activity volume (Cohen's d=0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, p=0.008), higher body weight (0.36, 0.17 to 0.55, p<0.001) and greater CMJ height (0.31, 0.07 to 0.56, p=0.01) as associated modifiable factors. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of strong evidence for any potential modifiable risk factors or associated factors. Factors with lower levels of support may be of interest in designing prevention programmes but require further research in high-quality, prospective studies.
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 | 0.024 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".