Risk Factors for Shoulder Injuries in Water Polo: a Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very limited investigations have been conducted exploring risk factors for injury in water polo players. A gap remains in the literature regarding identification of variables that should be considered as part of player screening evaluations. PURPOSE: To estimate whether previous injury, changes in strength, range of motion (ROM) or upward scapular rotation (UR) are related to shoulder injuries in water polo players. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive cohort study. METHODS: Thirty-nine international-level players participated (19 males). Shoulder internal (IR) and external rotation (ER) peak torque was measured using an isokinetic device (CONtrex MJ). Shoulder ROM was measured passively using standard goniometry. Scapular UR was measured using a laser digital inclinometer. At baseline players were divided into groups: those with and without previous shoulder injuries. Independent t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the study variables between groups. After nine months, a second analysis compared the same athletes, who were then grouped by those who had or had not sustained new injuries. Effect sizes were calculated with a Hedge's g. Chi squared analysis compared proportion of injured players with and without previous injury. RESULTS: Eighteen participants (46%) had previous injuries at baseline. Players with a previous injury showed higher peak torques for IR (0.62±0.15 vs 0.54±0.13N/kg, p=0.04, g=0.60); larger loss of IR ROM (9.9±9.1 vs 4.1±7.5°, p=0.04, g=0.68), but no statistical difference in UR (p=0.70). After nine months, there were no statistical strength differences between groups. Loss of IR ROM was significantly higher in the injured group (9.8±9.8 vs 4.0±6.7°, p=0.04, g=0.68), as well as UR (13.0±3.0 vs 10.4±3.3°, p=0.01, g=0.81). History of previous injury was significantly related to developing a new injury (OR 6.5, p=0.02). Logistic regression found previous injury and UR most important contributors to injury risk. CONCLUSIONS: Previous injury, changes in IR ROM and UR are related to new shoulder injuries in water polo, but further variables such as rest, training load, or psychosocial factors may explain the incidence of new injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".