Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Trampoline centre injuries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      , ,
      Injury Prevention
      BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Context

          No evidence-based review has compared injury risks sustained on trampolines at home and in trampoline centres.

          Objective

          To present pooled results for injury type, site and treatment from studies reporting injuries that occurred on trampolines at home and in trampoline centres.

          Data sources

          MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar and Embase databases were searched to 31 December 2021.

          Study selection

          Inclusion criteria: (1) assessment of trampoline injuries (home and trampoline centres); (2) children and adolescents; (3) the point estimate was reported as an odds ratio (OR); and (4) an internal comparison was used.

          Data extraction

          Data were reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effects model was used to estimate effect.

          Results

          There were 1 386 843 injuries (n=11 studies). There was an increased likelihood of musculoskeletal and/or orthopaedic injuries (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.61, p<0.001), lower extremity injury (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.99 to 3.97, p<0.001), sprains (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.97, p<0.001) and a need for surgery (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.60, p<0.001) at trampoline centres compared with home trampolines. Conversely, upper extremity injury (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95, p=0.03), concussion (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.65, p<0.001) and lacerations (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.59, p<0.001) were less likely to occur at trampoline centres than at home.

          Conclusions

          Children using trampoline centres are more likely to suffer severe trauma and require surgical intervention than children using home trampolines. Development and implementation of preventative strategies, public awareness, and mandatory safety standards are urgently required for trampoline centres.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Injury Prevention
                Inj Prev
                BMJ
                1353-8047
                1475-5785
                June 13 2022
                : injuryprev-2022-044530
                Article
                10.1136/injuryprev-2022-044530
                35697515
                d6cd0ae5-3640-4bf8-a24a-2e4d2c2748b9
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article