1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalence and Risk Factors of Musculoskeletal Disorders in Basketball Players: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      , , , ,
      Healthcare
      MDPI AG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Musculoskeletal disorders characteristically induce pain and limitations in mobility, ability, and overall functioning. In athletes, including basketball players, disorders such as back pain, postural changes, and spinal injuries are common. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the prevalence of back pain and musculoskeletal disorders in basketball players and ascertain the associated factors. Methods: The Embase, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published in English without a time limit. Using STATA, meta-analyses were performed to estimate the prevalence of pain and musculoskeletal disorders of the back and spine. Results: Of the 4135 articles identified, 33 studies were included in this review, with 27 studies included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 21 were used for the meta-analysis of back pain, 6 articles were used for the meta-analysis of spinal injury, and 2 studies were used for the meta-analysis of postural changes. The overall prevalence of back pain was 43% [95% CI, −1% to 88%]; of these, the prevalence of neck pain was 36% [95% CI, 22–50%], the prevalence of back pain was 16% [95% CI, 4–28%], the prevalence of low back pain was 26% [95% CI, 16–37%], the prevalence of thoracic spine pain was 6% [95% CI, 3–9%]. The combined prevalence of spinal injury and spondylolysis was 10% [95% CI, 4–15%], with a prevalence of spondylolysis of 14% [95% CI, 0.1–27%]. The combined prevalence of hyperkyphosis and hyperlordosis was 30% [95% CI, 9–51%]. In conclusion, we found a high prevalence of neck pain, followed by low back pain and back pain, in basketball players. Thus, prevention programs are important to improve health and sports performance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Healthcare
                Healthcare
                MDPI AG
                2227-9032
                April 2023
                April 21 2023
                : 11
                : 8
                : 1190
                Article
                10.3390/healthcare11081190
                3f11f3a3-f9f2-4503-8211-4967057b8956
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article