Background Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting are two sports that expose the body to great forces. Injury characteristics have not been systematically reviewed for these two growing sports. Objective The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding various definitions of injuries used, injury localisation, the prevalence and incidence of injuries and the associated risk factors for injuries in weightlifting and powerlifting. Design Systematic review. Data sources Five databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched between 9 March and 6 April 2015. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies assessing injury incidence and prevalence in Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting were included. The Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and crosssectional studies was used to assess methodological quality. Results 9 studies were included in the review. Injury was defined fairly consistently across studies. Most studies were of low methodological quality. The spine, shoulder and the knee were the most common injury localisations in both sports. The injury incidence in weightlifting was 2.4-3.3 injuries/1000 hours of training and 1.0-4.4 injuries/1000 hours of training in powerlifting. Only one retrospective study had analysed possible risk factors. Summary/conclusions The risk of injury in both sports were similar to other non-contact sports also requiring strength/power, but low compared to contact sports. The severity of injuries differed in the included studies. Since little has been studied regarding possible risk factors to injuries, further research is therefore warranted to explain why athletes get injured and how to prevent injuries. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42015014805.

Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Background Low back pain is a common disorder. Patients with low back pain frequently have aberrant and pain-provocative movement patterns that often are addressed with motor control exercises. Objective To compare the effects of low-load motor control (LMC) exercise and those of a high-load lifting (HLL) exercise. Methods Seventy participants with recurrent low back pain, who were diagnosed with nociceptive mechanical pain as their dominating pain pattern, were randomized to either LMC or HLL exercise treatments. Participants were offered 12 treatment sessions over an 8-week period. All participants were also provided with education regarding pain mechanisms. Methods Participants were assessed prior to and following treatment. The primary outcome measures were activity (the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) and average pain intensity over the last 7 days (visual analog scale). The secondary outcome measure was a physical performance test battery that included 1 strength, 3 endurance, and 7 movement control tests for the lumbopelvic region. Results Both interventions resulted in significant within-group improvements in pain intensity, strength, and endurance. The LMC group showed significantly greater improvement on the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (4.2 points) compared with the HLL group (2.5 points) (P<.001). There were no significant between-group differences in pain intensity (P = .505), strength, and 1 of the 3 endurance tests. However, the LMC group showed an increase (from 2.9 to 5.9) on the movement control test subscale, whereas the HLL group showed no change (from 3.9 to 3.1) (P<.001). Conclusion An LMC intervention may result in superior outcomes in activity, movement control, and muscle endurance compared to an HLL intervention, but not in pain intensity, strength, or endurance. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01061632). Level of Evidence Therapy, level 2b-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2015;45(2):77–85. doi:10.2519/jospt.2015.5021

This study aimed at investigating the relationships between work-related psychosocial factors, worry about work conditions and health complaints (sleeping problems, headache and stomach symptoms) among female and male ambulance personnel. Out of 4000 ambulance personnel in Sweden, 1500 (300 female and 1200 male personnel) were randomly selected. They answered a questionnaire including items on self-reported health complaints, individual characteristics, work-related psychological demands, decision latitude, social support and worry about work conditions. Twenty-five per cent of the female and 20% of the male ambulance personnel reported two or more health complaints sometimes or often. According to the demand-control-support questionnaire, ambulance personnel reported a generally positive psychosocial work environment, although psychological demands were associated with sleeping problems, headache and stomach symptoms among both female and male ambulance personnel. Another factor that was significantly associated with health complaints among both genders was worry about work conditions. When worry about work conditions was added to the regression models, this variable took over the role from psychological demands as a predictor for health complaints among the female ambulance personnel. The prevalence of sleeping problems, headache and stomach symptoms were significantly associated with psychological demands among both female and male ambulance personnel. Notably, worry about work conditions seems to be an important risk factor for health complaints. This suggests that worry about work conditions should not be neglected when considering risk factors among ambulance personnel.

The objective of this study was to examine the content validity of commonly used muscle performance tests in military personnel and to investigate the reliability of a proposed test battery. For the content validity investigation, thirty selected tests were those described in the literature and/or commonly used in the Nordic and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries. Nine selected experts rated, on a four-point Likert scale, the relevance of these tests in relation to five different work tasks: lifting, carrying equipment on the body or in the hands, climbing, and digging. Thereafter, a content validity index (CVI) was calculated for each work task. The result showed excellent CVI (≥0.78) for sixteen tests, which comprised of one or more of the military work tasks. Three of the tests; the functional lower-limb loading test (the Ranger test), dead-lift with kettlebells, and back extension, showed excellent content validity for four of the work tasks. For the development of a new muscle strength/endurance test battery, these three tests were further supplemented with two other tests, namely, the chins and side-bridge test. The inter-rater reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC2,1 0.99) for all five tests. The intra-rater reliability was good to high (ICC3,1 0.82–0.96) with an acceptable standard error of mean (SEM), except for the side-bridge test (SEM%>15). Thus, the final suggested test battery for a valid and reliable evaluation of soldiers’ muscle performance comprised the following four tests; the Ranger test, dead-lift with kettlebells, chins, and back extension test. The criterion-related validity of the test battery should be further evaluated for soldiers exposed to varying physical workload.