Risk factors for musculoskeletal injuries in the military: a qualitative systematic review of the literature from the past two decades and a new prioritizing injury model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal injuries (MSkIs) are a leading cause of health care utilization, as well as limited duty and disability in the US military and other armed forces. MSkIs affect members of the military during initial training, operational training, and deployment and have a direct negative impact on overall troop readiness. Currently, a systematic overview of all risk factors for MSkIs in the military is not available. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out using the PubMed, Ovid/Medline, and Web of Science databases from January 1, 2000 to September 10, 2019. Additionally, a reference list scan was performed (using the "snowball method"). Thereafter, an international, multidisciplinary expert panel scored the level of evidence per risk factor, and a classification of modifiable/non-modifiable was made. RESULTS: In total, 176 original papers and 3 meta-analyses were included in the review. A list of 57 reported potential risk factors was formed. For 21 risk factors, the level of evidence was considered moderate or strong. Based on this literature review and an in-depth analysis, the expert panel developed a model to display the most relevant risk factors identified, introducing the idea of the "order of importance" and including concepts that are modifiable/non-modifiable, as well as extrinsic/intrinsic risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: This is the qualitative systematic review of studies on risk factors for MSkIs in the military that has attempted to be all-inclusive. A total of 57 different potential risk factors were identified, and a new, prioritizing injury model was developed. This model may help us to understand risk factors that can be addressed, and in which order they should be prioritized when planning intervention strategies within military groups.
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 | 0.074 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".