用于评估舞蹈演员肌肉骨骼损伤的验证工具:系统综述。

IF 1.1 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Isabela Panosso, Danrlei Senger, Marcela Dos Santos Delabary, Manuela Angioi, Aline Nogueira Haas
{"title":"用于评估舞蹈演员肌肉骨骼损伤的验证工具:系统综述。","authors":"Isabela Panosso, Danrlei Senger, Marcela Dos Santos Delabary, Manuela Angioi, Aline Nogueira Haas","doi":"10.1177/1089313X241272137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Dance is a physically demanding art form that often results in musculoskeletal injuries. To effectively treat these injuries, standardized and reliable assessment tools designed to the dancer's needs are required. Thus, the aim of this review is to identify studies that have employed validated tools to assess musculoskeletal injuries in ballet, modern, and contemporary dancers, focusing on describing the content and psychometric quality of the tools used. <b>Methods:</b> This systematic review is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022306755). PubMed, Cochrane, LILACS, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus databases were searched by two independent reviewers. Articles assessing musculoskeletal injuries with validated tools in ballet, modern and/or contemporary dancers and written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish were included. Non-peer reviewed articles, books, conference abstracts, thesis/review articles, or case design studies were excluded. The original validation studies were compiled when necessary. Two independent reviewers conducted a standardized data extraction and evaluated the methodological quality using an adapted Downs and Black checklist. <b>Results:</b> From the 3933 studies screened, 172 were read to verify if they met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 37 studies included accounting for 16 unique validated tools. Two were imaging exams, one was an injury classification system, and 13 were self-reported injury questionnaires. Only four injury assessment tools were validated for dancers, emphasizing the need for further validation studies for the dance population. Most of the articles (57%) achieved high-quality methodological scores and the remaining (43%) reported medium-quality scores. <b>Conclusions:</b> Valid, reliable, and specific tools to assess dance injuries are lacking in general. For enhanced methodological rigor in future studies, the incorporation of validated tools is recommended to improve methodological quality and facilitate cross-study comparisons. Researchers may consider conducting validation studies, involving processes such as translation into another language, validation of modifications to the original tool, or reporting reliability within the article itself.</p>","PeriodicalId":46421,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dance Medicine & Science","volume":" ","pages":"1089313X241272137"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validated Tools Used to Assess Musculoskeletal Injuries in Dancers: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Isabela Panosso, Danrlei Senger, Marcela Dos Santos Delabary, Manuela Angioi, Aline Nogueira Haas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1089313X241272137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Dance is a physically demanding art form that often results in musculoskeletal injuries. To effectively treat these injuries, standardized and reliable assessment tools designed to the dancer's needs are required. Thus, the aim of this review is to identify studies that have employed validated tools to assess musculoskeletal injuries in ballet, modern, and contemporary dancers, focusing on describing the content and psychometric quality of the tools used. <b>Methods:</b> This systematic review is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022306755). PubMed, Cochrane, LILACS, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus databases were searched by two independent reviewers. Articles assessing musculoskeletal injuries with validated tools in ballet, modern and/or contemporary dancers and written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish were included. Non-peer reviewed articles, books, conference abstracts, thesis/review articles, or case design studies were excluded. The original validation studies were compiled when necessary. Two independent reviewers conducted a standardized data extraction and evaluated the methodological quality using an adapted Downs and Black checklist. <b>Results:</b> From the 3933 studies screened, 172 were read to verify if they met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 37 studies included accounting for 16 unique validated tools. Two were imaging exams, one was an injury classification system, and 13 were self-reported injury questionnaires. Only four injury assessment tools were validated for dancers, emphasizing the need for further validation studies for the dance population. Most of the articles (57%) achieved high-quality methodological scores and the remaining (43%) reported medium-quality scores. <b>Conclusions:</b> Valid, reliable, and specific tools to assess dance injuries are lacking in general. For enhanced methodological rigor in future studies, the incorporation of validated tools is recommended to improve methodological quality and facilitate cross-study comparisons. Researchers may consider conducting validation studies, involving processes such as translation into another language, validation of modifications to the original tool, or reporting reliability within the article itself.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dance Medicine & Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1089313X241272137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dance Medicine & Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089313X241272137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dance Medicine & Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089313X241272137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介舞蹈是一种耗费体力的艺术形式,经常会导致肌肉骨骼损伤。为了有效治疗这些损伤,需要根据舞蹈演员的需求设计标准化、可靠的评估工具。因此,本综述旨在确定采用有效工具评估芭蕾、现代和当代舞蹈演员肌肉骨骼损伤的研究,重点描述所用工具的内容和心理测量质量。方法:本系统综述已在 PROSPERO(CRD42022306755)上注册。两位独立审稿人检索了 PubMed、Cochrane、LILACS、Web of Science 和 SPORTDiscus 数据库。纳入了使用有效工具评估芭蕾舞、现代舞和/或当代舞者肌肉骨骼损伤的文章,这些文章以英语、葡萄牙语或西班牙语撰写。未经同行评审的文章、书籍、会议摘要、论文/评论文章或案例设计研究均被排除在外。必要时对原始验证研究进行汇编。两位独立审稿人进行了标准化的数据提取,并使用改编的唐斯和布莱克核对表对研究方法的质量进行了评估。结果:从筛选出的 3933 项研究中,我们阅读了 172 项研究,以核实它们是否符合纳入标准,最终纳入了 37 项研究,包括 16 种独特的验证工具。其中 2 项是影像检查,1 项是损伤分类系统,13 项是自我报告损伤问卷。只有四种损伤评估工具是针对舞蹈演员进行验证的,这强调了针对舞蹈人群进行进一步验证研究的必要性。大部分文章(57%)获得了高质量方法评分,其余文章(43%)获得了中等质量评分。结论目前普遍缺乏有效、可靠和具体的工具来评估舞蹈损伤。为了提高未来研究方法的严谨性,建议采用经过验证的工具来提高方法质量,并促进跨研究比较。研究人员可考虑开展验证研究,包括将工具翻译成其他语言、验证对原始工具的修改或在文章中报告工具的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validated Tools Used to Assess Musculoskeletal Injuries in Dancers: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: Dance is a physically demanding art form that often results in musculoskeletal injuries. To effectively treat these injuries, standardized and reliable assessment tools designed to the dancer's needs are required. Thus, the aim of this review is to identify studies that have employed validated tools to assess musculoskeletal injuries in ballet, modern, and contemporary dancers, focusing on describing the content and psychometric quality of the tools used. Methods: This systematic review is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022306755). PubMed, Cochrane, LILACS, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus databases were searched by two independent reviewers. Articles assessing musculoskeletal injuries with validated tools in ballet, modern and/or contemporary dancers and written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish were included. Non-peer reviewed articles, books, conference abstracts, thesis/review articles, or case design studies were excluded. The original validation studies were compiled when necessary. Two independent reviewers conducted a standardized data extraction and evaluated the methodological quality using an adapted Downs and Black checklist. Results: From the 3933 studies screened, 172 were read to verify if they met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 37 studies included accounting for 16 unique validated tools. Two were imaging exams, one was an injury classification system, and 13 were self-reported injury questionnaires. Only four injury assessment tools were validated for dancers, emphasizing the need for further validation studies for the dance population. Most of the articles (57%) achieved high-quality methodological scores and the remaining (43%) reported medium-quality scores. Conclusions: Valid, reliable, and specific tools to assess dance injuries are lacking in general. For enhanced methodological rigor in future studies, the incorporation of validated tools is recommended to improve methodological quality and facilitate cross-study comparisons. Researchers may consider conducting validation studies, involving processes such as translation into another language, validation of modifications to the original tool, or reporting reliability within the article itself.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
33
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信