Shoulder pain and injury risk factors in competitive swimmers: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To synthesize and assess the literature for shoulder pain and injury risk factors in competitive swimmers. DESIGN: Systematic review with best-evidence synthesis. DATA SOURCES: CINHAL, SportDiscus, Scorpus, PubMed, and Embase databases from 1966 to April 30 2022. SEARCH AND INCLUSION: Cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies investigating shoulder pain or injury risk factors in competitive swimmers were included. Quality of eligible studies were assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk factors were divided into four categories: modifiable-intrinsic, modifiable-extrinsic, non-modifiable, and other/secondary. RESULTS: Of 1356 studies identified, 24 full texts were evaluated for methodological quality, 22 met the criteria and were included in best evidence synthesis. There was no strong evidence supporting or refuting the association between 80 assessed variables and shoulder injury or pain. The swimmers' competitive level (nondirectional), and shoulder muscle recruitment profiles (e.g., increased activity of serratus anterior) exhibited moderate evidence supporting an association. Conversely, internal and external range of motion, middle finger back scratch test, training frequency, specialty stroke, height/weight, sex, and age all had moderate evidence opposing an association. Limited evidence was found for 58 variables, and conflicting for 8. The highest quality study (n = 201) suggested high acute-to-chronic workload ratio and reduced posterior shoulder strength endurance are associated with injury. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the paucity of high-quality studies, future prospective studies are needed to reevaluate known risk factor associations over exploring additional potential risk factors. Swimming practitioners should be aware of the nondirectional association of a swimmer's competitive level and pain, as squad changes could impact injury incidence. Moreover, swimmers experiencing shoulder pain may show increased activity in shoulder stabilizers during specific movements. Importantly, shoulder strength-endurance may be the most clinically relevant modifiable intrinsic risk factor.
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 | 0.013 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".