MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407177301 · doi:10.1177/1089313x251314987

Injury Prevention Strategies in Dance: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4407177301 on OpenAlex
M. Critchley, Ebonie Rio, Kenzie B. Friesen, Anu M. Räisänen, Sarah Kenny, Carolyn A. Emery

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dance Medicine & Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceCINAHLMedicineScopusMEDLINEPhysical therapyInclusion (mineral)PopulationPoison controlInjury preventionPsycINFOPsychologyPsychological interventionMedical emergencyNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dance is a popular activity worldwide that comes with inherently high injury rates. Despite the call for implementation and evaluation of injury prevention strategies, the utility and efficacy of injury prevention practices in dance are unknown. Objective: The primary objective of this systematic review was to describe dance-specific injury prevention strategies in any dance population. The secondary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies in the reduction of injury prevalence or incidence rates. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched to March 2024 (Medline, EMBASE, SportDiscus, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane). Selected studies met a priori inclusion criteria that required original data describing an injury prevention strategy for any genre of dance. Studies were excluded if; no injury outcomes were reported, no injury prevention strategy was utilized, or if dance was used as a therapeutic intervention/fitness. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and full texts for inclusion. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Level of Evidence tool. Results: From 2209 potentially relevant records, 8 studies met criteria for inclusion. Injury prevention strategies were diverse across conditioning and exercise programs, neuromuscular training warm-up, psychological coping skills training, and educational programs, with a range of duration and adherence measures. Due to inconsistent injury surveillance methodology, efficacy of these programs could not be determined. Quality of included studies was moderate to high, with moderate to low risk of bias. Conclusions: Efficacy and adherence to dance-specific injury prevention strategies are understudied in the dance science literature. Conditioning and exercise programs are currently the most common injury prevention strategies, with initial evidence suggesting they may be efficacious in reducing injury rates. Further research using valid injury surveillance methodologies and standardized injury definitions to examine the efficacy of these strategies in reducing dance-related injury is needed. Level of evidence: I.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.406 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it