Page 128 - 2022 Spring JSOM

Begg and Mazumdar Rank Correlation p-value .44 .23 .31 .46 .05 .09 .05 .25 .12 .02 <.01 .02 <.01 <.01 .06 Proportion of All Injuries (%) 87 52 93 92 83 79 87 89 87 61 76 90 75 77 95 100 90 89

Publication Bias Statistics Duval & Tweedie Trim and Fill Adjusted Effect Size, % injured (95% CI) — 43 (37–50) — — — — — — 44 (36–52) 12.47 (2.52–22.41) — — 5.24 (2.45–8.02) 7.26 (4.19–10.32) — Ankle/Foot 16 (9%) NR 4 (10%) 6 (5%) 13 (4%) NR 1 (7%) 3 (5%) 7 (9%) 1 (4%) 9 (4%) 31 (7%) NR 9 (3%) 3 (3%) 3 (75%) 35 (6%) 6 (9%)

(%)
I 2 Trimmed and Filled Studies (n) 0 95 3 96 0 97 0 96 0 95 0 91 0 96 0 98 2 94 1 100 0 100 0 100 4 100 3 100 0 100 Wrist/Hand/Finger 18 (10%) NR 4 (10%) 12 (9%) 16 (5%) 13 (10%) 2 (13%) 11 (18%) 8 (10%) f 19 (8%) 84 (19%) 1 (4%) 24 (8%) 9 (9%) 1 (25%) 65 (11%) 7 (11%)
Q-Statistic p-value <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 Anatomic Location of Injuries, n (% of total reported injuries) Arm/Elbow 26 (14%) NR 4 (10%) 8 (6%) 36 (12%) 7 (6%) 1 (7%) 5 (8%) NR f 31 (13%) 32 (7%) 2 (8%) 9 (3%) 2 (2%) 0 30 (5%) g

Effect Size for Injury Rate, injuries/1000h training (95% CI) 9.87 (3.34–16.41) 2.58 (1.83–3.32) 3.29 (1.68–4.90) 3.87 (2.94–4.79) 5.47 (3.55–7.40) 6.27 (2.28–10.25) Knee 18 (10%) 11 (12%) 5 (13%) 29 (22%) 25 (8%) 15 (13%) 3 (20%) 10 (16%) 9 (12%) 6 (21%) 29 (12%) 34 (8%) 7 (29%) 30 (10%) 14 (14%) 0 90 (15%) 3 (5%) a Some authors report only one injury/injured person, others report total injuries (i.e., could be >1 injury/person)

Effect Size for Injury Prevalence,% (95% CI) 24 (15–37) 40 (35–45) 39 (29–50) 37 (32–42) 34 (27–41) 35 (26–45) 37 (28–48) 38 (26–53) 40 (34–48) Back/Spine 37 (20%) 12 (13%) 11 (28%) 29 (22%) d 63 (21%) 23 (18%) 5 (33%) 11 (18%) 14 (18%) 7 (25%) 46 (19%) 99 (23%) 6 (25%) 95 (32%) 35 (35%) 0 155 (27%) 17 (26%) say there were 80 injuries, but only 78 are shown in table with injury anatomic locations. f Shoulder and elbow combin

Studies (n) 7 21 8 24 15 4 6 4 11 4 13 4 14 9 3 Shoulder 47 (25%) 21 (24%) 9 (23%) 38 (29%) c 87 (29%) 42 (33%) 1 (7%) 14 (23%) 28 (36%) 2 (7%) 47 (19%) 91 (21%) 2 (8%) 61 (21%) 31 (31%) 0 150 (26%) 26 (39%) f
TABLE 2 Meta-Analyses on Covariates in Studies Examining HIFT

Prospective Cohort Studies Similar Injury Definition CrossFit Investigations HIFT Programs Not CrossFit Reporting Period 6 months Reporting Period 1 year Prospective Cohort Retrospective Cross-Sectional Similar Injury Definition CrossFit Investigations HIFT Programs Not CrossFit Abbreviation: HIFT = high-intensity functional training. TABLE 3 Anatomical Location of HIFT Injuries
Moderator Retrospective Cross-Sectional Studies Training in CrossFit Affiliated Gyms Reporting Period Since Starting HIFT Training in CrossFit Affiliated Gyms Injuries (n) a 186 b 89 40 132 303 b 127 15 62 78 e 28 247 b 437 b 24 295 b 99 4 585 b 66

Outcome Injury Prevalence Injury Rate Study Hak et al. 2013 32 Weisenthal et al. 2014 22 Chachula et al. 2016 33 Aune & Powers 47 Mehrab et al. 2017 24 Escalante et al. 2017 25 Moran et al. 2017 34 Montalvo et al. 2017 35 Minghelli & Vicente 26 Larsen et al. 2020 38 Szeles et al. 2020 39 Cheng et al. 2020 28 Batterson et al. 2020 48 Alekseyev et al. 2020 40 Lima et al. 2020 41 Martinez-Gomez et al. 2021 42 Bernstorff et al. 2021

126 | JSOM Volume 22, Edition 1 / Sping 2022