↓ Skip to main content

Prevention of exertional lower body musculoskeletal injury in tactical populations: protocol for a systematic review and planned meta-analysis of prospective studies from 1955 to 2018

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevention of exertional lower body musculoskeletal injury in tactical populations: protocol for a systematic review and planned meta-analysis of prospective studies from 1955 to 2018
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0730-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shawn D. Flanagan, Aaron M. Sinnott, Kellen T. Krajewski, Caleb D. Johnson, Shawn R. Eagle, Alice D. LaGoy, Meaghan E. Beckner, Anne Z. Beethe, Rose Turner, Mita Lovalekar, Courtenay Dunn-Lewis, Chris Connaboy, Bradley C. Nindl

Abstract

Exertional lower body musculoskeletal injuries (ELBI) cost billions of dollars and compromise the readiness and job performance of military service and public safety workers (i.e., tactical populations). The prevalence and burden of such injuries underscores the importance of prevention efforts during activities necessary to sustain core occupational competencies. Attempts to synthesize prevention techniques specific to tactical populations have provided limited insight on the comparative efficacy of interventions that do not modify physical training practices. There is also a need to assess the influence of sex, exposure, injury classification scheme, and study design. Thus, the primary purpose of the systematic review and planned meta-analysis detailed in this protocol is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of ELBI prevention strategies in tactical populations. A systematic search strategy will be implemented in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL. A multi-tiered process will be used to capture randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that directly assess the prevention of ELBI in tactical population(s). Extracted data will be used to compare prevention strategies and assess the influence of heterogeneity related to occupation, sex, exposure, injury characteristics, and study quality. In addition, individual risk of bias, meta-bias, and the quality of the body of evidence will be rigorously tested. This systematic review and planned meta-analysis will comprehensively evaluate ELBI mitigation strategies in tactical populations, elucidate factors that influence responses to treatment, and assess the overall quality of the body of research. Results of this work will guide the prioritization of ELBI prevention strategies and direct future research efforts, with direct relevance to tactical, health and rehabilitation science, and human performance optimization stakeholders. The systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 3 Jan 2018 (registration number CRD42018081799 ).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 25%
Sports and Recreations 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 24 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,057,674
of 14,125,937 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#220
of 1,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,911
of 275,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,125,937 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them