Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this systematic review was to update the knowledge on risk factors and prevention strategies for shoulder injuries in overhead sports with special emphasis on methodological quality.
Methods
All methodological procedures were performed in line with a previous systematic review by Asker et al. (2018). The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and SPORT-Discuss databases. Due to the risk of bias assessment, only studies with at least an acceptable methodological quality were included. A best-evidence synthesis was performed to clarify the evidence and direction of the risk factors and prevention strategies.
Results
A total of nine studies were included in the data extraction process. One study had a high and eight studies had an acceptable methodological quality. Seven cohort studies investigated risk factors and two randomised controlled trails evaluated prevention strategies. Moderate evidence was found for two non-modifiable (playing position, gender) and three modifiable factors (shoulder rotational strength, scapular dyskinesia, shoulder prevention programme) that were associated with the shoulder injury risk. All further risk factors had moderate and no association with risk (shoulder rotational ROM, joint position sense) or limited (history of shoulder/elbow pain, age, training experience, training volume, school grade, playing level), and conflicting evidence (setting).
Conclusions
There is moderate evidence for two non-modifiable (playing position, gender) and three modifiable factors (shoulder rotational strength, scapular dyskinesia, shoulder prevention programme) being associated with the shoulder injury risk in overhead sports.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40634-022-00493-9.
Keywords: Baseball, Handball, Joint instability, Long biceps tendinosis, Overuse injuries, Rehabilitation, Return to sports, Rotator cuff lesion, Shoulder pain, Tennis
Introduction
Shoulder pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal complaints and can be extremely debilitating [47] for athletes in overhead sports [41]. In these sports, the shoulder joint is at high risk for overuse injuries due to their similar load and risk profiles [10, 15, 27, 38]. They all have repetitive and explosive overhead movements in common that could lead – in case of overload – to an ongoing process of tissue damage [1, 33]. The incidence and prevalence of shoulder injuries in overhead sports varies from 0.2/1000 to 1.8/1000 hours [7, 31, 50] and from 5% to 36% [9, 10, 32], respectively. The time loss from sport-specific training can range between four to 6 months [29], whereas the return-to-sports rates vary between 20% and 90% [29, 46]. In professional baseball, as one of the most shoulder demanding overhead sport, return-to-performance rates of 7% have been reported for some injuries [16]. Overall, the burden of shoulder injuries in overhead sports can be severe, potentially career-threatening, and therefore underlines the need to develop appropriate prevention strategies for both the athletes’ health and long-term performance development.
For the development of prevention strategies, knowledge of the epidemiology and aetiology as well as risk factors are important [17, 49]. For overhead sports, clinically established modifiable risk factors are: insufficient load management, abnormal throwing or stroking technique, previous injury to the upper extremity and/or spine, functioning of the kinetic chain, deficits in shoulder range of motion (ROM) or strength, scapular dyskinesia, and posture as “slough-position”. Essential non-modifiable risk factors are: male sex, young age, individual anatomy as torsion of the humerus or glenoid dysplasia, and high capsular laxity [8, 11, 13, 18, 19]. However, compared to other severe sport injuries, especially to the anterior cruciate ligament where meta-analysis of meta-analysis exist [52], there is clearly less evidence on risk factors and prevention strategies for shoulder injuries [3, 24], and thus more research is needed.
In 2018, a comprehensive review on risk factors and prevention strategies for shoulder injuries in overhead sports was published [3]. From 4776 identified studies, 17 studies on risk factors and one study on prevention strategies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were considered for data extraction. However, no study with a high methodological quality could be included. Since many studies on risk factors and prevention strategies for shoulder injuries have been published during the last 3 years, an update is required. Thereby, and to allow valid practical recommendation, it is rational to place a focus on studies with, at least in part, an acceptable methodological quality.
The aim of this systematic review was to update the knowledge on risk factors and prevention strategies for shoulder injuries in overhead sports with special emphasis on methodological quality.
Methods
Research design
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement (PRISMA) was followed [25]. To provide an update, all methodological procedures were performed in line with a previous systematic review on risk factors and prevention strategies for shoulder injuries [3]. Briefly, our eligibility criteria were: (i) randomised controlled trials or cohort/case-control studies published in English; (ii) more than 20 athletes per group of any gender, age, and playing level; (iii) badminton, baseball, cricket, handball, lacrosse, softball, tennis, volleyball, and water polo as overhead sports; and (iv) shoulder injury or pain as dependent outcome variable. All methodological steps were conducted by two authors and a third made a decision on disagreements. Due to the non-invasive character, no ethical approval was considered.
Literature search strategy and study selection
The literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and SPORT-Discuss databases. Subsequent to the previous review [3], the publication period was restricted from 15 May 2017 to 31 December 2020. The applied search terms were taken from the previous review and combined by Boolean operators. The received entries were downloaded to a reference manager (Endnote X9). All reference lists of the included studies were screened for additional studies fulfilling the eligibility criteria. After duplicates were removed, the abstracts and full texts of the remaining studies were checked for their fit by taking the eligibility criteria into account.
Risk of bias assessment
The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklists [42] in a modified version developed by the previous review [3]. Thereon, the internal validity of all studies was evaluated based on 15 and 10 items for cohort/case-control studies and randomised controlled trails, respectively. According to the SIGN-guidelines, the overall assessment of each study was stated as: “high quality”, “acceptable”, “borderline”, and “unacceptable”. The criteria of these ratings are described in detail elsewhere [3]. The risk of bias assessment for those studies published before 15 May 2017 were taken from the previous review [3].
Data extraction
Contrary to the previous review [3], only studies with a high or an acceptable methodological quality rating were included in the data extraction process. Additionally, studies with at least an acceptable methodological quality from the previous review were included. The reason was that we aimed to provide valid practical recommendations for which, at least in part, an acceptable methodological quality is an essential prerequisite. The data extraction of the studies was conducted according to the PICO-framework [30]. An additional meta-analysis was not conducted due to the large heterogeneity of the studies. Instead, and according to the previous review [3], a best-evidence synthesis was performed to clarify the evidence and direction of the risk factors and prevention strategies. In Table 1, the corresponding criteria are defined and the ratings were as follows: “strong evidence”, “moderate evidence”, “limited evidence”, “conflicting evidence”, and “no evidence”.
Table 1.
Criteria for the best-evidence synthesis
| Rating | Study quality | Criterion |
|---|---|---|
| Strong evidence | ≥ 2 high quality studies | ≥ 75% consistent findings in these studies |
| Moderate evidence | 1 high quality study and/or ≥ 2 moderate quality studies | ≥ 75% consistent findings in these studies |
| Limited evidence | 1 moderate quality study and/or ≥ 1 low quality studies | n/a |
| Conflicting evidence | ≥ 2 studies of any quality | < 75% consistent findings in these studies |
| No evidence | No admissible studies were found | |
Results
Literature search strategy, study selection, and risk of bias
Figure 1 shows the results of the literature search strategy, including the outcomes of the study selection and risk of bias assessment procedures. Of the initial 3057 studies found, 25 complied with the initial inclusion criteria and were assessed for risk of bias assessment. Table 2 summarises the corresponding outcomes by the SIGN-checklists. Due to a low methodological quality (borderline and unacceptable ratings), 19 studies were excluded (for references see supplementary material). Thus, 6 studies with high and acceptable methodological qualities from our [4, 5, 20, 35, 39, 40] and 3 studies with acceptable ratings from the previous review [2, 26, 54] were included in the data extraction process. Of the 9 included studies, one study had an overall high quality [5] and 8 studies an acceptable risk of bias rating [2, 4, 20, 26, 35, 39, 40, 54].
Fig. 1.
Flow chart of the literature search strategy according to the PRISMA-guidelines
Table 2.
Outcomes of the 25 studies checked for the risk of bias assessment by the SIGN-checklist
| Study | Item | Total | Overall assessment | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | Y | N | NA | CS | ||
| Asker et al. (2020) [5] | Y | Y | Y | Y | 4% | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 11 | 3 | 0 | 0 | High quality |
| Andersson et al. (2016) [2]a, b | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | CS | – | – | – | – | – | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | Acceptable |
| Asker et al. (2018) [4] | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6% | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 11 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Acceptable |
| Hams et al. (2019a) [20] | Y | Y | N | NA | 15% | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 1 | 4 | 0 | Acceptable |
| Matsuura et al. (2017) [26]a | Y | Y | Y | CS | 12% | N | Y | NA | NA | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Acceptable |
| Oliver et al. (2019) [35] | Y | Y | N | NA | CS | NA | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2 | Acceptable |
| Sakata et al. (2019) [39]b | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 7%/8% | CS | Y | – | – | – | – | – | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Acceptable |
| Saper et al. (2018) [40] | Y | Y | N | NA | CS | NA | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Acceptable |
| Wilk et al. (2015) [54]a | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | Y | NA | Y | N | Y | CS | Y | Y | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Acceptable |
| Achenbach et al. (2020)c | Y | Y | Y | CS | CS | CS | Y | Y | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 11 | 0 | 1 | 3 | Borderline |
| Agel et al. (2007)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | NA | 7 | 3 | 4 | 1 | Borderline |
| Bonza et al. (2009)a,c | Y | Y | N | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | Y | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1 | Borderline |
| Cunado-Gonzales et al. (2019)c | Y | Y | Y | CS | 29% | NA | Y | CS | CS | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | 8 | 2 | 1 | 3 | Borderline |
| Dick et al. (2007a)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | NA | 7 | 3 | 4 | 1 | Borderline |
| Dick et al. (2007b)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | NA | 7 | 3 | 4 | 1 | Borderline |
| Fares et al. (2020)c | Y | Y | NA | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | Y | 7 | 0 | 8 | 0 | Borderline |
| Gardner et al. (2016)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Borderline |
| Giroto et al. (2015)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | 0% | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | NA | 7 | 2 | 5 | 0 | Borderline |
| Hibberd et al. (2016)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Borderline |
| Hinton et al. (2005)a,c | Y | Y | N | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | NA | N | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Borderline |
| Kim et al. (2020)c | Y | Y | Y | N | 44% | N | Y | CS | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 4 | 0 | 1 | Borderline |
| Marshall et al. (2007)a,c | Y | Y | Y | N | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | NA | 6 | 4 | 4 | 1 | Borderline |
| Møller et al. (2017)a,c | Y | Y | CS | Y | CS | N | Y | CS | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 9 | 3 | 0 | 3 | Borderline |
| Noonan et al. (2016)a,c | Y | Y | N | Y | CS | N | Y | Y | NA | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | 8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | Borderline |
| Owens et al. (2009)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | NA | 7 | 3 | 4 | 1 | Borderline |
| Reeser et al. (2015)a,c | Y | NA | N | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | NA | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | Borderline |
| Robinson et al. (2013)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Borderline |
| Sallis et al. (2001)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Borderline |
| Sekiguchi et al. (2020)c | Y | N | Y | N | 16% | N | Y | N | N | CS | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | 5 | 0 | 1 | Borderline |
| Takagishi et al. (2019)c | Y | Y | N | CS | 0% | NA | Y | CS | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 1 | 2 | Borderline |
| Berardi et al. (2019)c | Y | Y | N | CS | CS | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | NA | CS | N | Y | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | Unacceptable |
| Bere et al. (2015)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | 3% | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | N | NA | 6 | 3 | 5 | 0 | Unacceptable |
| Byram et al. (2010)a,c | Y | Y | Y | N | CS | N | Y | CS | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 5 | 8 | 0 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Clarsen et al. (2014) [9]a | Y | Y | Y | N | > 20% | Y | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 10 | 2 | 2 | 0 | Unacceptable |
| Dakic et al. (2018)c | Y | Y | Y | CS | 0% | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 1 | 3 | 1 | Unacceptable |
| Dutton et al. (2019)c | Y | CS | Y | Y | CS | CS | Y | CS | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 2 | 0 | 4 | Unacceptable |
| Erickson et al. (2019)c | Y | Y | N | CS | CS | CS | Y | N | CS | Y | Y | CS | Y | N | Y | 7 | 3 | 0 | 5 | Unacceptable |
| Forthomme et al. (2013)a,c | Y | CS | N | Y | CS | N | Y | Y | NA | CS | N | Y | N | N | N | 5 | 6 | 1 | 3 | Unacceptable |
| Gregory et al. (2002)a,c | Y | N | Y | Y | CS | N | N | CS | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | 5 | 8 | 0 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Hams et al. (2019b)c | Y | Y | N | Y | CS | CS | Y | N | N | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 3 | 0 | 3 | Unacceptable |
| Hansen et al. (2019)c | Y | Y | NA | CS | CS | NA | Y | NA | NA | CS | Y | N | N | N | Y | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Unacceptable |
| Luig et al. (2020)c | Y | N | NA | CS | 0% | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | NA | Y | Y | Y | 7 | 1 | 5 | 1 | Unacceptable |
| Lyman at al. (2002)a,c | Y | Y | Y | CS | CS | N | N | CS | N | CS | N | Y | N | N | Y | 5 | 6 | 0 | 4 | Unacceptable |
| Lyman et al. (2001)a,c | Y | Y | Y | CS | CS | N | N | CS | N | CS | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 7 | 4 | 0 | 4 | Unacceptable |
| Marchena-Rodriguez et al. (2020)c | Y | N | N | N | 0% | NA | Y | Y | NA | Y | CS | N | N | Y | Y | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | Unacceptable |
| Oliver et al. (2018)c | Y | Y | Y | N | 9% | N | Y | N | N | CS | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 7 | 6 | 0 | 1 | Unacceptable |
| Polster et al. (2013)a,c | Y | CS | N | NA | CS | N | Y | Y | NA | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Polster et al. (2016)a,c | N | CS | N | N | CS | N | N | CS | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | 4 | 8 | 0 | 3 | Unacceptable |
| Ranson et al. (2008) [38]a | Y | CS | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | CS | N | N | N | N | Y | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | Unacceptable |
| Rugg et al. (2019)c | Y | N | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | NA | NA | N | N | CS | Y | N | Y | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | Unacceptable |
| Salzer et al. (2020)c | N | N | N | CS | CS | NA | Y | N | N | CS | N | N | Y | N | Y | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | Unacceptable |
| Seil et al. (1998)a,c | Y | Y | N | N | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | 5 | 7 | 2 | 1 | Unacceptable |
| Sekiguchi et al. (2018)c | Y | N | Y | N | 5% | N | Y | CS | N | CS | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 6 | 6 | 0 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Sell et al. (2014)a,c | Y | N | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | CS | CS | NA | N | Y | Y | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Unacceptable |
| Shanley et al. (2011)a,c | Y | Y | Y | N | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | Unacceptable |
| Shanley et al. (2015)a,c | Y | Y | N | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Slodwonik et al. (2018)c | Y | Y | Y | Y | 50% | N | Y | CS | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | 8 | 5 | 0 | 1 | Unacceptable |
| Smith et al. (2015)a,c | Y | CS | Y | CS | 20% | N | N | NA | NA | Y | Y | NA | N | N | Y | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Struyf et al. (2014)a,c | Y | Y | N | Y | 30% | N | N | CS | N | CS | N | N | N | N | Y | 4 | 8 | 0 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Wang et al. (2001)a,c | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | N | Y | CS | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | NA | 7 | 5 | 1 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Wilk et al. (2011)a,c | Y | Y | N | Y | CS | N | Y | CS | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | 7 | 6 | 0 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Wright et al. (2007)a,c | Y | CS | N | Y | CS | N | Y | NA | NA | N | N | N | NA | N | Y | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | Unacceptable |
| Yung et al. (2007)a,c | Y | Y | NA | Y | 0% | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y | N | NA | N | N | N | 5 | 4 | 5 | 0 | Unacceptable |
SIGN Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Y Yes, N No, NA Not applicable, CS Can’t say
aTaken from previous review (Asker et al., 2018)
bRandomised controlled trial with 10 items
cFor excluded references see supplementary material
Study characteristics
The most investigated overhead sport was baseball with 4 studies [26, 39, 40, 54] followed by handball with 3 studies [2, 4, 5]. There was one study on softball [35] and water polo [20] each. While both genders were studied in 5 studies [2, 4, 5, 20, 39], males were most likely investigated in one study due to the league affiliation [54]. There were 3 studies on baseball and softball in which the sex was not explicitly specified [26, 35, 40]. 6 studies included youth [4, 5, 26, 35, 39, 40], 2 studies adult elite [2, 54], and one study adult sub-elite [20] athletes. With respect to the study design and outcome type, 7 cohort studies investigated risk factors [4, 5, 20, 26, 35, 40, 54], whereas 2 randomised controlled trails evaluated prevention strategies [2, 39].
Synthesis of results on risk factors
Table 3 summarises the outcomes of the 7 cohort studies on risk factors according to the PICO-framework. The most addressed risk factor was playing position with 4 studies [4, 26, 35, 40] followed by setting (match vs. training) [20, 35, 40] and gender with 3 studies [4, 5, 20], and shoulder rotational ROM with 2 studies [5, 54]. Further risk factors as history of shoulder/elbow pain [26], age [26], training experience [26], training volume [26], school grade [4], playing level [4], shoulder rotational strength [5], scapula dyskinesia [5], and joint position sense [5] were addressed in one study each.
Table 3.
Characteristics of the 7 cohort studies on risk factors according to the PICO-framework
| Author (Year) | Population | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asker et al. (2020) [5] | 471 female (54%) and male adolescent elite handball players from handball-profiled schools in Sweden, 15–19 years old, free of shoulder injuries at baseline | Baseline shoulder examination and questionnaire followed by weekly online monitoring of shoulder injuries over one (2014/15) or two seasons (2015/16) | Gender differences in relationship between shoulder injury incidence (dominant side) during handball play and shoulder ROM, strength, scapular dyskinesia, and joint position sense | Shoulder incidence was 0.92/1000 hrs in females and 0.71/1000 hrs in males; positive relationship between isometric shoulder external/internal rotation strength deficit and injury risk in females (hazard rate ratio: < 2.37) but not in males (< 1.02), positive relationship between scapular dyskinesia during abduction and injury risk in males (3.43) but not in females (1.53), no association with internal/external/total rotational ROM (< 1.56) and joint position sense (< 1.14) in both genders |
| Asker et al. (2018) [4] | 471 female (54%) and male adolescent elite handball players from handball-profiled schools in Sweden, 15–19 years old, free of shoulder injuries at baseline | Baseline questionnaire followed by weekly online monitoring of shoulder injuries over one (2014/15) or two seasons (2015/16) | Gender, school grade, playing position, and playing level differences in shoulder injury prevalence | Shoulder prevalence was higher in females (< 48%, prevalence ratio: < 1.46) than in males (< 39%, 1.00) and higher in backcourt players (< 51%, < 1.58) than in other positions (< 40%, < 1.00), no differences in school grade and playing level |
| Hams et al. (2019a) [20] | 218 female (59%) and male adult sub-elite water polo players from Australia, mean age of 19.3 and 20.6 years | Self- (2009–2013) and physiotherapist-report (2014–2016) on injury data of several body areas over up to 5 years | Body area, gender, and training/match differences in injury incidence rate, mechanism of injury, and injury burden | Shoulder incidence rate was 0.65/1000 training days, 25% (self-report) and 16% (physiotherapist-report) of all injuries being shoulder injuries with no gender differences (p = 0.33), proportion of shoulder injuries (16–25%) was higher than for all other body areas (11–17%) (p < 0.01), 67% of shoulder injuries were due to overuse and 33% due to trauma, more injuries in training (48%) than match (24%), each shoulder injury resulted in 6 days of training lost and 47 days in modified training |
| Matsuura et al. (2017) [26] | 900 youth baseball players from Japan participating in regional summer championship, 7–11 years old | Baseline questionnaire and at one year follow-up (2012–2013) | Multivariate relationships between shoulder/elbow pain and age, playing position, length of baseball experience, training hours per week, and history of shoulder/elbow pain | Shoulder and elbow pain was evident in 18% and 35% of players; shoulder pain was only related to pitcher/catcher position, training hours per week, and history of shoulder/elbow pain (all p < 0.05). No relationship with age (p > 0.42) and length of experience (p > 0.52) |
| Oliver et al. (2019) [35] | Softball players from 100 high schools in USA, ~ 16 years old on average | Surveillance system on shoulder and elbow injury data (2005–06 to 2016–17) | Differences in injury rate, mechanism of injury, match/training occurrence, playing position distribution, injury burden, and further characteristics of shoulder and elbow injuries | Shoulder injury rate (1.14/1000 athlete-exposure) was higher than for elbow (0.41/1000), shoulder injury rate was higher in match (1.33/1000) than training (1.04/1000), 50% of shoulder injuries were due to overuse and most common diagnoses were muscle strains (31%) followed by tendinitis (24%), 17% of shoulder injuries were sustained by pitchers, 87% of all shoulder injured players returned to play within 21 days and remaining 13% did not return |
| Saper et al. (2018) [40] | Baseball players from 100 high schools in USA, ~ 16 years old on average | Surveillance system on shoulder and elbow injury data (2005–06 to 2016–17) | Differences in injury rate, mechanism of injury, match/training occurrence, playing position distribution, injury burden, and further characteristics of shoulder and elbow injuries | Shoulder injury rate (1.39/1000 athlete-exposure) was higher than for elbow (0.86/1000), shoulder injury rate was higher in match (1.73/1000) than training (1.20/1000), 71% of shoulder injuries were due to overuse and most common diagnoses were muscle strains (31%) followed by tendinitis (19%), 40% of shoulder injuries were sustained by pitchers, 90% of shoulder injuries were managed non-surgically, 87% of shoulder injured players returned to play within 21 days |
| Wilk et al. (2014) [54] | 296 professional baseball pitchers from the USA participating in the major and minor league, 24.7 years old on average, free of shoulder injuries at baseline | Baseline shoulder examination and questionnaire over eight seasons (2005–2012) | Differences in shoulder ROM between dominant/non-dominant side and relationship with shoulder injuries and surgeries | 17% of all pitchers suffered a shoulder injury, 7% required a surgery whereby most were labral and rotator cuff debridements (35%) followed by labral repairs (30%) and debridements (20%), pitchers showed less shoulder internal/total rotation ROM but higher external ROM in their dominant than non-dominant shoulder (all p < 0.01), shoulder internal/total rotation ROM deficits were not related to shoulder injury or surgery (p > 0.21) but shoulder external ROM deficit increased the likelihood to sustain shoulder injury (2.2 times higher) and surgery (4.0 times) |
n Number of participants, ROM Range of motion
Playing position (4 studies)
One study in adolescent elite handball players shows a higher shoulder injury prevalence for backcourt players compared to other positions [4]. Two other studies in high school baseball and softball players show that most shoulder injuries were sustained by pitchers [35, 40]. A further study in youth regional baseball players reveals that pitcher and catcher position was a predictor for shoulder pain [26].
Setting (match vs. training) (3 studies)
Two studies in high school baseball and softball players show a higher shoulder injury rate during match than training [35, 40]. Contrary, a study in female and male adult sub-elite water polo players reveals a higher shoulder incidence rate during training than match [20].
Gender (3 studies)
Two studies in adolescent elite handball players demonstrate a higher shoulder incidence and prevalence in females than males [4, 5]. However, no gender differences of shoulder incidence rates were found in adult sub-elite water polo players [20].
Shoulder rotational ROM (2 studies)
A study in female and male adolescent elite handball players revealed that shoulder internal, external, and total rotational ROM was not related to new injuries [5]. Another study in professional baseball pitchers reveals that shoulder internal and total rotational ROM deficits were not related to injury or surgery. However, a positive relationship with injury and surgery was found for external rotational ROM deficit [54].
Further risk factors (one study each)
One study in youth regional baseball players found that the history of shoulder and elbow pain and weekly training volume were positively related to shoulder pain; however, no associations were observed for age and training experience [26]. Another study in female and male adolescent elite handball players found no differences in shoulder injury prevalence according to school grade and playing level [4]. An additional study with the same cohort observed that isometric shoulder internal and external rotation strength deficits were related to injury risk in females only, whereas scapular dyskinesia during abduction was linked to injury risk in males only. Moreover, no relationship was detected for shoulder joint position sense in both genders [5].
Synthesis of results on prevention strategies
Table 4 summarises the outcomes of the 2 randomised controlled trails on prevention strategies according the PICO-framework. Both studies [2, 39] applied the identical block randomised study design: the teams were allocated either to an intervention group performing a 10 min prevention programme during the warm-up or to a control group performing the normal warm-up. Specifically, one study [2] investigated female and male adult elite handball players. The investigated prevention programme included exercises to improve internal rotation ROM, shoulder external rotation and scapular strength, kinetic chain, and thoracic mobility. The programme was performed 3 times per week over 7 months. Contrary, the other study [39] addressed female and male youth baseball players playing at a regional level. In that study, the evaluated prevention programme consisted of stretching exercises to enhance shoulder, elbow, and hip ROM, dynamic mobility exercises to enhance scapular and thoracic function, and lower extremity exercises to enhance balance performance. The programme was performed at least once per week over 12 months.
Table 4.
Characteristics of the 2 randomised controlled trails on prevention strategies according to the PICO-framework
| Study (Year) | Population | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andersson et al. (2017) [2] | 660 female (49%) and male adult elite handball players from 45 teams participating in two highest leagues in Norway, ~ 22 years old on average, participating irrespective of shoulder injury status at baseline | Teams were block randomised into intervention (n = 22 teams, 331 players) and control group (n = 23 teams, 329 players); intervention group performed the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre Shoulder Injury Prevention Program (10 min exercises to improve internal rotation ROM, shoulder external rotation/scapular strength, kinetic chain, and thoracic mobility) 3 times per week during warm-up over 7 months (2014/15), control group performed normal warm-up; baseline questionnaire followed by monthly online monitoring of shoulder injuries | Group differences between prevalence of shoulder problems and substantial shoulder problems (moderate/severe reductions in training or inability to participate therein) in dominant arm | Prevalence of shoulder problems/substantial shoulder problems was 17%/5% in intervention and 23%/8% in control group during observation period, intervention group had 28% lower risk to sustain shoulder problems (odds ratio: 0.72, p = 0.04) than control group, no differences between groups for substantial shoulder problems (odds ratio: 0.78, p = 0.23) |
| Sakata et al. (2019) [39] | 219 female (< 1%) and male youth baseball players from 16 teams participating in regional league in Japan, 9–11 years old, participating irrespective of shoulder injury status at baseline | Teams were block randomised into intervention (n = 8 teams, 117 players) and control group (n = 8 teams, 120 players); intervention group performed the modified Yokohama Baseball-9 Throwing Injury Prevention Program (10 min stretching exercises to improve shoulder/elbow/hip ROM, dynamic mobility exercises to improve scapular/thoracic function, and lower extremity exercises to improve balance) at least once per week during warm-up over 12 months (2015/16), control group performed normal warm-up; baseline questionnaire followed by clinical/ultrasonographic shoulder assessment every 4 months and ball throwing speed pre/post intervention | Group differences between incidence of shoulder and/or elbow injuries; ball throwing speed as performance measure; and differences in defined risk factors as shoulder/elbow/hip ROM, thoracic kyphosis angle, and modified Star Excursion Balance Test performance | Incidence of pooled shoulder and/or elbow injuries was lower (hazard ratio: 1.94, p = 0.010) in intervention (1.7/1000 athlete exposures) than control group (3.1/1000), no differences for isolated shoulder (hazard ratio: 2.08, p = 0.076) and elbow injuries (hazard ratio: 1.79, p = 0.052); ball throwing speed increased more on average (p = 0.010) in intervention (+ 6.4 km/h) than control group (+ 4.1 km/h); intervention group showed also improved shoulder horizontal adduction ROM deficit in dominant side, hip internal rotational ROM in non-dominant side, and thoracic kyphosis angle (p < 0.03) |
n Number of participants, ROM Range of motion
Effectiveness of prevention programmes
The first study [2] shows that the prevention programme decreased the risk to sustain shoulder problems by 28%. However, the programme was not effective to decrease shoulder problems that were moderate and severe. The second study [39] reveals that the prevention programme reduced the pooled shoulder and elbow injuries. While the programme was not effective for isolated shoulder and elbow injuries, it also improved the ball throwing speed as a performance measure and the shoulder horizontal adduction ROM deficit in dominant side, hip internal rotation ROM in non-dominant side, and thoracic kyphosis angle as some of the additionally investigated potential underlying risk factors.
Best-evidence synthesis
Table 5 summarises the outcomes of the best-evidence synthesis. There was no risk factor or prevention strategy for which strong evidence could be identified. However, moderate evidence was found for two non-modifiable (playing position and gender) and three modifiable factors (shoulder rotational strength, scapular dyskinesia, and shoulder prevention programme) that were all associated with the risk to sustain a shoulder injury. All further risk factors had moderate and no association with risk (shoulder rotational ROM and joint position sense) or limited (history of shoulder/elbow pain, age, training experience, training volume, school grade, and playing level), and conflicting evidence (setting).
Table 5.
Best-evidence synthesis of risk factors and prevention strategies
| Study (Year) | Risk factor / prevention strategy | Association with risk | Study quality | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asker et al. (2018) [4] | Playing position | ↑ | Acceptable | Moderate evidence |
| Matsuura et al. (2017) [26] | ↑ | Acceptable | ||
| Oliver et al. 2019 [35] | ↑ | Acceptable | ||
| Saper et al. (2018) [40] | ↑ | Acceptable | ||
| Hams et al. (2019a) [20] | Setting (match vs. training) | ↓ | Acceptable | Conflicting evidence |
| Oliver et al. (2019) [35] | ↑ | Acceptable | ||
| Saper et al. (2018) [40] | ↑ | Acceptable | ||
| Asker et al. (2020) [5] | Gender | ↑ | High quality | Moderate evidence |
| Asker et al. (2018) [4] | ↑ | Acceptable | ||
| Hams et al. (2019a) [20] | → | Acceptable | ||
| Asker et al. (2020) [5] | Shoulder rotational ROM | →a | High quality | Moderate evidence |
| Wilk et al. (2014) [54] | →b | Acceptable | ||
| Matsuura et al. (2017) [26] | History of shoulder/elbow pain | ↑ | Acceptable | Limited evidence |
| Matsuura et al. (2017) [26] | Age | → | Acceptable | Limited evidence |
| Matsuura et al. (2017) [26] | Training experience | → | Acceptable | Limited evidence |
| Matsuura et al. (2017) [26] | Training volume | ↑ | Acceptable | Limited evidence |
| Asker et al. (2018) [4] | School grade | → | Acceptable | Limited evidence |
| Asker et al. (2018) [4] | Playing level | → | Acceptable | Limited evidence |
| Asker et al. (2020) [5] | Shoulder rotational strength | ↓c | High quality | Moderate evidence |
| Asker et al. (2020) [5] | Scapular dyskinesia | ↑d | High quality | Moderate evidence |
| Asker et al. (2020) [5] | Joint position sense | → | High quality | Moderate evidence |
| Andersson et al. (2017) [2] | Prevention programme | ↓ | Acceptable | Moderate evidence |
| Sakata et al. (2019) [39] | ↓ | Acceptable |
ROM Range of motion
↑ Positive association; ↓ Negative association; → No association
aFor internal, external, and total rotational ROM
bWith exception of external rotational ROM deficit, where a positive association is evident
cFor females only
dFor males only
Discussion
Our systematic review found moderate evidence for five factors being associated with the risk to sustain a shoulder injury in overhead sports (playing position, gender, shoulder rotational strength, scapular dyskinesia, shoulder prevention programme), which is in contrast to a previous and methodological similar review showing limited and conflicting evidence in 2018 [3]. While the previous review could include only three studies with at least an acceptable quality [2, 26, 54], we were able to add additional 6 studies [4, 5, 20, 35, 39, 40] to the best-evidence synthesis (Table 5) explaining the discrepancies. However, our outcomes (Tables 3 and 4) also reveal a lack of methodological acceptable research for overhead sports except for baseball and handball as well as in adult athletes. Additionally, little knowledge exists for numerous clinically established risk factors [8, 11, 13, 18, 19]. Moreover, there exist only two randomised controlled trails evaluating the effectiveness of shoulder prevention programmes [2, 39]. Overall, the knowledge on risk factors and prevention strategies for shoulder injuries in overhead sports based on acceptable methodological studies (Tables 3, 4 and 5) has increased during the last 3 years, legitimising an update as conducted here, but is clearly beyond that existing for other severe sports injuries such as anterior cruciate ligament injuries [52].
Our study shows moderate evidence for the playing position as a non-modifiable risk factor to sustain a shoulder injury in overhead sports (Tables 3 and 5). One explanation is that the mechanical loading of the shoulder joint differs according to the position-specific playing demands in overhead sports. In fact, handball backcourt players throw more often at high-speed on the goal and perform more passes than other playing positions [22]. Also, they are more often involved in tactical situations placing the shoulder in vulnerable positions, for example, when stopped by opponents during breakthroughs [22]. Similarly, baseball/softball pitchers, and also catchers, perform more high-speed throws than the other positions [28, 36]. With respect to high-speed throws, it is known that they induce high-forces to the shoulder joint [53], which can lead to an accumulation of microtrauma and increase the injury and overuse risk [1, 33] for certain playing positions as observed here (Tables 3 and 5). However, all of the 4 included studies were conducted in youth handball and baseball/softball athletes competing at high playing levels [4, 26, 35, 40]. Therefore, it remains unclear, whether a young age and high playing level are interacting risk factors here [26] for which we found however limited evidence in isolation (Table 5). To clarify this, more research is needed.
Also, moderate evidence was detected for the gender as a further non-modifiable shoulder injury risk factor (Tables 3 and 5). While the underlying mechanisms remain unknown, different throwing kinematics may be one factor for the higher injury risk in females [45, 48], but there is no study showing a causal relationship yet [4]. Interestingly, the higher injury risk for females is also known from other severe sport injuries, in particular, to the anterior cruciate ligament [51]. Thereby, a higher laxity is considered as one explanatory factor [21]. From a clinical point of view, a high laxity was also expected as a risk factor for shoulder injuries in overhead sports [18], but we were unable to detected any evidence therefore (Tables 3 and 5). Again, it is also worth mentioning here that the higher risk for females was shown by 2 studies in youth elite handball athletes [4, 5], whereby the third study revealed no gender-differences at an adult sub-elite level [20]. These observations may support our previous assumption that a young age and high playing level are interacting risk factors also here, requiring further investigations.
We revealed moderate evidence for the shoulder rotational strength and scapular dyskinesia being associated with the shoulder injury risk (Tables 3 and 5). Both modifiable risk factors were investigated in one study [5], in which gender-specific relationships were detected in youth elite handball players: While isometric shoulder internal and external rotational strength deficits were associated with injury risk in females, scapular dyskinesia during abduction was related to injury risk in males. It has been speculated that these observations are also related to differences in throwing kinematics, because females use a more rotational strength demanding technique compared to males [5]. Additionally, it was pointed out that scapular dyskinesia during abduction is a clinical rational risk factor due to its close relation to the throwing technique in handball [5]. However, a consensus statement on the clinical implications concluded that scapular dyskinesis is evident in many shoulder injuries, particularly in shoulder impingement symptoms, whereby its exact role for creating or exacerbating shoulder dysfunction are not fully understood [23]. The causal factors may be related to muscular shoulder weakness, fatigue, or imbalance due to their well-known negative associations to the performance and neuromuscular control of peri-scapular muscles [12, 14].
Finally, our review shows moderate evidence that performing shoulder prevention programmes reduce the injury risk in overhead sports (Tables 4 and 5). The two included studies were conducted in female and male handball and baseball players competing at sub-elite to elite levels. Although both programmes were effective to reduce shoulder as well as pooled shoulder and/or elbow injuries, they failed to decrease the risk for substantial and isolated shoulder injuries [2, 39]. Since no negative effects are known yet, the shoulder prevention programmes can be recommended to be implemented in the training process of overhead athletes with the drawback that the exact mechanistic functioning remain widely unknown [44]. Generally, injury prevention programmes consist of several exercises performed for approximately 10 min during the warm-up. It is assumed that these exercises positively address several modifiable underlying risk factors, which finally reduce the injury risk – ideally increasing the physical performance too [44]. With respect to shoulder injuries, there is only one noteworthy study that has investigated the effectiveness of a prevention programme on all injury risk, potential underlying risk factors, and performance [39]. However, to date, nothing is known concerning the long-term effects of shoulder prevention programmes [19], effectiveness of individualised shoulder prevention programmes based on screening test results [6], impact of single exercises of an entire prevention programme, or their interdependent relationships [19] as well as optimal implementation and compliance strategies [34, 37, 43] (Tables 3, 4 and 5).
Conclusion
There is moderate evidence for two non-modifiable (playing position, gender) and three modifiable factors (shoulder rotational strength, scapular dyskinesia, shoulder prevention programme) being associated with the shoulder injury risk in overhead sports. From a practical point of view, these factors can be used as a framework to design injury screening tests and prevention strategies that should then be adapted for each overhead sport and subpopulation. However, more research is needed to evaluate further risk factors and shoulder prevention strategies.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Hanna Klode for her assistance during the preparation of the manuscript.
Abbreviations
- PRISMA
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
- ROM
Range of motion
- SIGN
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
Authors’ contributions
MWH conceptualised the study, performed the methodological steps, analysed the data, and wrote the original draft. JB performed the methodological steps, analysed the data, formatted the paper, and reviewed and edited the original draft. TT was involved in the study planning and reviewed and edited the original draft. KB reviewed and edited the original draft. RS reviewed and edited the original draft. CG conceptualised the study, performed the methodological steps, analysed the data, and reviewed and edited the original draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study received no external funding. We acknowledge support from Leipzig University for Open Access Publishing.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not available due to literature based.
Consent for publication
Not available due to literature based.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Aicale R, Tarantino D, Maffulli N. Overuse injuries in sport: a comprehensive overview. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13:309. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-1017-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Andersson SH, Bahr R, Clarsen B, Myklebust G. Preventing overuse shoulder injuries among throwing athletes: a cluster-randomised controlled trial in 660 elite handball players. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:1073–1080. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Asker M, Brooke HL, Walden M, Tranaeus U, Johansson F, Skillgate E, et al. Risk factors for, and prevention of, shoulder injuries in overhead sports: a systematic review with best-evidence synthesis. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:1312–1319. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Asker M, Holm LW, Kallberg H, Walden M, Skillgate E. Female adolescent elite handball players are more susceptible to shoulder problems than their male counterparts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:1892–1900. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-4857-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Asker M, Walden M, Kallberg H, Holm LW, Skillgate E. Preseason clinical shoulder test results and shoulder injury rate in adolescent elite handball players: a prospective study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020;50:67–74. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2020.9044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bahr R. Why screening tests to predict injury do not work-and probably never will...: a critical review. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:776–780. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bahr R, Reeser JC, Federation Internationale de V Injuries among world-class professional beach volleyball players. The federation Internationale de volleyball beach volleyball injury study. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31:119–125. doi: 10.1177/03635465030310010401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Beitzel K, Reuter S, Imhoff AB, Braun S. Die Sportlerschulter: Der 5-Punkte-Check zum Therapieerfolg. Dtsch Z Sportmed. 2016;67:103–110. doi: 10.5960/dzsm.2016.226. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Clarsen B, Bahr R, Andersson SH, Munk R, Myklebust G. Reduced glenohumeral rotation, external rotation weakness and scapular dyskinesis are risk factors for shoulder injuries among elite male handball players: a prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:1327–1333. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Clarsen B, Bahr R, Heymans MW, Engedahl M, Midtsundstad G, Rosenlund L, et al. The prevalence and impact of overuse injuries in five Norwegian sports: application of a new surveillance method. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25:323–330. doi: 10.1111/sms.12223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cools AM, Johansson FR, Borms D, Maenhout A. Prevention of shoulder injuries in overhead athletes: a science-based approach. Braz J Phys Ther. 2015;19:331–339. doi: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Cools AM, Witvrouw EE, Declercq GA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC. Evaluation of isokinetic force production and associated muscle activity in the scapular rotators during a protraction-retraction movement in overhead athletes with impingement symptoms. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:64–68. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.004952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Dexel J, Kopkow C, Kasten P. Pathomechanismus, Diagnostik und Therapie der Skapuladyskinesie beim Wurfsportler. Dtsch Z Sportmed. 2013;64:267–272. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ebaugh DD, McClure PW, Karduna AR. Effects of shoulder muscle fatigue caused by repetitive overhead activities on scapulothoracic and glenohumeral kinematics. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2006;16:224–235. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2005.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fahlstrom M, Yeap JS, Alfredson H, Soderman K. Shoulder pain - a common problem in world-class badminton players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16:168–173. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2004.00427.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Fedoriw WW, Ramkumar P, McCulloch PC, Lintner DM. Return to play after treatment of superior labral tears in professional baseball players. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:1155–1160. doi: 10.1177/0363546514528096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Finch C. A new framework for research leading to sports injury prevention. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9:3–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2006.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gokeler A, Tischer T, Greiner S. Prävention von Schulterverletzungen. In: Grim C, Krifter RM, editors. Schulterinstabilität: GOTS-Expertenmeeting. Jena: Verlags-Comptior Rolle; 2014. pp. 83–93. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Grim C, Hoppe MW, Beitzel K, Lutter C, Tischer T, Mauch F. Evidenz zur Prävention von Schulterverletzungen. In: Seil R, Tischer T, editors. Primärprävention von Sportverletzungen. 6. GOTS-Expertenmeeting Luxemburg 19.09. - 22-09-2019. Jena: Verlags-Comptior Rolle; 2020. pp. 65–75. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hams A, Evans K, Adams R, Waddington G, Witchalls J. Epidemiology of shoulder injury in sub-elite level water polo players. Phys Ther Sport. 2019;35:127–132. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Herzberg SD, Motu'apuaka ML, Lambert W, Fu R, Brady J, Guise JM. The effect of menstrual cycle and contraceptives on ACL injuries and laxity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5:2325967117718781. doi: 10.1177/2325967117718781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Karcher C, Buchheit M. On-court demands of elite handball, with special reference to playing positions. Sports Med. 2014;44:797–814. doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0164-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kibler WB, Ludewig PM, McClure PW, Michener LA, Bak K, Sciascia AD. Clinical implications of scapular dyskinesis in shoulder injury: the 2013 consensus statement from the 'Scapular Summit'. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:877–885. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lauersen JB, Bertelsen DM, Andersen LB. The effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent sports injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:871–877. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Matsuura T, Iwame T, Suzue N, Arisawa K, Sairyo K. Risk factors for shoulder and elbow pain in youth baseball players. Phys Sportsmed. 2017;45:140–144. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2017.1300505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Matsuura T, Suzue N, Iwame T, Arisawa K, Fukuta S, Sairyo K. Epidemiology of shoulder and elbow pain in youth baseball players. Phys Sportsmed. 2016;44:97–100. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2016.1149422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Matsuura T, Suzue N, Kashiwaguchi S, Arisawa K, Yasui N. Elbow injuries in youth baseball players without prior elbow pain: a 1-year prospective study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013;1:2325967113509948. doi: 10.1177/2325967113509948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Michener LA, Abrams JS, Bliven KCH, Falsone S, Laudner KG, McFarland EG, et al. National Athletic Trainers' association position statement: evaluation, management, and outcomes of and return-to-play criteria for overhead athletes with superior labral anterior-posterior injuries. J Athl Train. 2018;53:209–229. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-59-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Moller M, Attermann J, Myklebust G, Wedderkopp N. Injury risk in Danish youth and senior elite handball using a new SMS text messages approach. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:531–537. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Myklebust G, Hasslan L, Bahr R, Steffen K. High prevalence of shoulder pain among elite Norwegian female handball players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23:288–294. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01398.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Neil ER, Winkelmann ZK, Edler JR. Defining the term "overuse": an evidence-based review of sports epidemiology literature. J Athl Train. 2018;53:279–281. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-84-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.O'Brien J, Hägglund M, Bizzini M. Implementing injury prevention. The rocky road from RCT to real-world injury reduction. Aspetar Sports Med J. 2018;7:70–76. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Oliver GD, Saper MG, Drogosz M, Plummer HA, Arakkal AT, Comstock RD, et al. Epidemiology of shoulder and elbow injuries among US high school softball players, 2005-2006 through 2016-2017. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7:2325967119867428. doi: 10.1177/2325967119867428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Olsen SJ, 2nd, Fleisig GS, Dun S, Loftice J, Andrews JR. Risk factors for shoulder and elbow injuries in adolescent baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:905–912. doi: 10.1177/0363546505284188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Owoeye OBA, VanderWey MJ, Pike I. Reducing injuries in soccer (football): an umbrella review of best evidence across the epidemiological framework for prevention. Sports Med Open. 2020;6:46. doi: 10.1186/s40798-020-00274-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Ranson C, Gregory PL. Shoulder injury in professional cricketers. Phys Ther Sport. 2008;9:34–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2007.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sakata J, Nakamura E, Suzuki T, Suzukawa M, Akeda M, Yamazaki T, et al. Throwing injuries in youth baseball players: can a prevention program help? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47:2709–2716. doi: 10.1177/0363546519861378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Saper MG, Pierpoint LA, Liu W, Comstock RD, Polousky JD, Andrews JR. Epidemiology of shoulder and elbow injuries among United States high school baseball players: school years 2005-2006 through 2014-2015. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46:37–43. doi: 10.1177/0363546517734172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Schwank A, Blazey P, Asker M, Moller M, Hagglund M, Gard S, et al. 2022 Bern consensus statement on shoulder injury prevention, rehabilitation, and return to sport for athletes at all participation levels. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2022;52:11–28. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.10952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Scottish Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 2020; http://www.sign.ac.uk
- 43.Seil R, Hoppe MW, Lutter C, Best R, Gokeler A, Verhagen EA, et al. Implementierung von Strategien zur Primärprävention von Sportverletzungen und -schädern. In: Seil R, Tischer T, et al., editors. Primärprävention von Sportverletzungen. Jena: Verlags-Comptior Rolle; 2020. pp. 65–75. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Seil R, Tischer T. Primärprävention von Sportverletzungen. Jena: Verlags-Comptior Rolle; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Serrien B, Clijsen R, Blondeel J, Goossens M, Baeyens JP. Differences in ball speed and three-dimensional kinematics between male and female handball players during a standing throw with run-up. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2015;7:27. doi: 10.1186/s13102-015-0021-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Thorsness R, Alland JA, McCulloch CB, Romeo A. Return to play after shoulder surgery in throwers. Clin Sports Med. 2016;35:563–575. doi: 10.1016/j.csm.2016.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Urwin M, Symmons D, Allison T, Brammah T, Busby H, Roxby M, et al. Estimating the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in the community: the comparative prevalence of symptoms at different anatomical sites, and the relation to social deprivation. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998;57:649–655. doi: 10.1136/ard.57.11.649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Van Den Tillaar R, Cabri JM. Gender differences in the kinematics and ball velocity of overarm throwing in elite team handball players. J Sports Sci. 2012;30:807–813. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.671529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.van Mechelen W, Hlobil H, Kemper HC. Incidence, severity, aetiology and prevention of sports injuries. A review of concepts. Sports Med. 1992;14:82–99. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199214020-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Verhagen EA, Van der Beek AJ, Bouter LM, Bahr RM, Van Mechelen W. A one season prospective cohort study of volleyball injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:477–481. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.005785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Volpi P, Bisciotti GN, Chamari K, Cena E, Carimati G, Bragazzi NL. Risk factors of anterior cruciate ligament injury in football players: a systematic review of the literature. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2016;6:480–485. doi: 10.32098/mltj.04.2016.09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Webster KE, Hewett TE. Meta-analysis of meta-analyses of anterior cruciate ligament injury reduction training programs. J Orthop Res. 2018;36:2696–2708. doi: 10.1002/jor.24043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Wieser K, Gerber C, Meyer DC. The throwing shoulder. Praxis (Bern 1994) 2016;105:159–165. doi: 10.1024/1661-8157/a002252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Wilk KE, Macrina LC, Fleisig GS, Aune KT, Porterfield RA, Harker P, et al. Deficits in glenohumeral passive range of motion increase risk of elbow injury in professional baseball pitchers: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:2075–2081. doi: 10.1177/0363546514538391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.