Journal Article

Prevention strategies and modifiable risk factors for spine, chest, abdominal and/or pelvic injury and pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the Female, woman and girl Athlete Injury pRevention (FAIR) consensus

Moore, Isabel S, Gomez, Christina D, Schneider, Kathryn J, Butler, Miranda, Dane, Kathryn, Schulz, Jenna M, Schneider, Geoff, Ferraz, Pazzinatto Marcella, Emery, Carolyn A, Wilson, Fiona, Crossley, Kay M, Thornton, Jane S, Mizuta Rami, Whittaker, Jackie L, Trease Larissa, Ackerman, Kathryn E, Alix, Hayden K, Galarneau Jean-Michel, Mosler, Andrea Britt, Sharma Saurab, Dubé Marc-Olivier, Marmura Hana

2025

Overview

ObjectiveInvestigate prevention interventions and potential modifiable risk factors (MRFs) for female/woman/girl athletes’ spine, chest, abdominal or pelvic injury and/or pain.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses, semiquantitative analyses and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, CDSR, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, ERIC.EligibilityPrimary data studies with comparison group(s) assessing the association of prevention interventions and/or MRFs for spine, chest, abdominal and/or pelvic injury/pain with ≥1 female/woman/girl athlete in each study group.ResultsAcross 105 studies (n=11 interventions, n=92 MRFs, n=2 both, n=35 female/woman/girl-specific estimates) including 59 833 participants (23.7% females/women/girls) 9 injury/pain outcomes were assessed (n=74 low-back, n=14 back, n=13 neck, n=5 pelvis, n=3 thoracic, n=3 abdominal, n=3 trunk, n=2 rib, n=1 breast). Three prevention strategies (exercise, equipment, rule-change) and 22 MRFs were identified. High risk of confounding bias (Downs and Black quality assessment tool) was present in 92% and 63% of intervention and MRF studies, respectively. Considering female/woman/girl estimates, we performed meta-analyses (standardised mean-difference) on 4 MRFs (body mass, body mass index (BMI), weekly training hours, spinal flexion) for low-back pain (LBP) and semiquantitative analyses for one intervention (exercise), and 3 MRFs (yearly training load, hip motion, hip strength) for LBP. Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in body mass (g=0.28, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.62; I2=67.7%), BMI (g=0.22, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.69; I2=68.2%), weekly training hours (g=0.15, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.58; I2=45.6%) or spinal flexion (g=0.27, 95% CI −0.23 to 0.76; I2=40.4%) between female/women/girls athletes with and without LBP.ConclusionsThere is limited knowledge about prevention interventions or MRFs for female/women/girl athletes’ spine, chest, abdominal and/or pelvic injury/pain.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42024479654.

• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group LTD
• Subject: Abdomen / Athletes / Females / Gender / Girls / Health sciences / Inclusion / Injury prevention / Librarians / Menstruation / Multiculturalism & pluralism / Pain / Risk factors / Rugby / Sports injuries / Systematic review / Womens health