125 Injury associated with dance education: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Several studies have investigated injury in specific genres (i.e., ballet, contemporary) and/or levels (i.e., pre-professional, professional) of dance. Less is known about injuries sustained during the teaching of dance, which accounts for the highest proportion of the global dance community. <h3>Objective</h3> To determine the risk of injury associated with participation in organized dance education. <h3>Design</h3> Systematic review. <h3>Setting</h3> Formal dance education (e.g., community classes, dance schools/studios, university programs). <h3>Patients (or Participants)</h3> Dance students and teachers. <h3>Main Outcome Measurements</h3> Six electronic databases were searched to August 2020 (Medline, EMBASE, SportDiscus, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane). Inclusion criteria were: original data from dance teacher/student samples, injury and exposure related to formal dance classes, any dance genre. Studies were excluded if no estimate of exposure was reported, if injuries occurred during rehearsal/performance, or if dance was used as a therapeutic intervention or for exercise. Two reviewers independently assessed each paper for inclusion at abstract and full text screening stages. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Level of Evidence tool. <h3>Results</h3> Twenty-five papers were included. Most studies (n=22) focused on dance students only, two included only dance teachers, and one study included both. The quality of studies ranged from poor to moderate. For students and teachers, most injuries were overuse/chronic and involved the lower limb. Student injury rates were estimated at 0.8–9.3 injuries/1000 h. In dance teachers, a single study described 732 pain reports/1000 h and injury incidence estimates ranged from 0.86–1.25 injuries/dance teacher. Due to limited investigation of risk factors, results could not be stratified by sex, age, or dance style. <h3>Conclusions</h3> There have been few primary investigations of injury in dance education settings, despite large rates of dance participation. Consistent injury and exposure definitions, and high-quality prospective studies are needed for examining injury risk in the dance teaching environment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".