Review

Injuries among weightlifters and powerlifters:

a systematic review
Ulrika Aasa,1,2 Ivar Svartholm,1 Fredrik Andersson,1 Lars Berglund1,2

For example, Gross et al5 described an increasing

1
Department of Community ABSTRACT
Medicine and Rehabilitation, Background Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting are risk of shoulder injury when the shoulder joint is
Physiotherapy, Umeå
University, Umeå, Sweden
two sports that expose the body to great forces. Injury abducted and externally rotated which is a position
2
Umeå School of Sport characteristics have not been systematically reviewed for weightlifters achieve during a snatch. It has also
Sciences, Umeå University, these two growing sports. been suggested by Kujala et al6 that squat move-
Umeå, Sweden Objective The purpose of this study was to ment could increase the risk of osteoarthritis. The
systematically review the literature regarding various reason for this could be the fact that the knee joint
Correspondence to
Lars Berglund, Department of definitions of injuries used, injury localisation, the is exposed to high forces when performing squats.7
Community Medicine and prevalence and incidence of injuries and the associated In powerlifting and weightlifting deep squats are
Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy, risk factors for injuries in weightlifting and powerlifting. included in daily training and during competition.
Umeå University, Umeå SE-901 Design Systematic review. Regarding the deadlift exercise, there is a high load
87, Sweden; lars.berglund@
umu.se Data sources Five databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, on the spine during the lifts. It has been shown that
SPORTDiscus, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched the compression forces average >17 000 N in elite
Accepted 8 September 2016 between 9 March and 6 April 2015. powerlifters,8 and the distribution of forces have a
Published Online First Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies large variation depending on the lifting technique.
4 October 2016
assessing injury incidence and prevalence in Olympic This might mirror the findings in a book on the
weightlifting and powerlifting were included. The Quality injury epidemiology of Olympic sports, where it
assessment tool for observational cohort and cross- was suggested that competitive level might also be
sectional studies was used to assess methodological associated with injury rate in weightlifters.9
quality. The definition of a sports injury varies between
Results 9 studies were included in the review. Injury studies. Sometimes the definition can be restricted
was defined fairly consistently across studies. Most studies to the consequences of sudden, damaging events
were of low methodological quality. The spine, shoulder such as strains and lacerations.10 However, signs and
and the knee were the most common injury localisations symptoms of overuse syndromes (eg, pain and func-
in both sports. The injury incidence in weightlifting was tional limitations) appear gradually and the athlete
2.4–3.3 injuries/1000 hours of training and 1.0–4.4 often continues training.11 The different definitions
injuries/1000 hours of training in powerlifting. Only one used in earlier studies about weightlifters and
retrospective study had analysed possible risk factors. powerlifters make it hard to get an overview of the
Summary/conclusions The risk of injury in both sports prevalence and incidence of injuries, and the causes
were similar to other non-contact sports also requiring of the injuries. According to Van Mechelen’s
strength/power, but low compared to contact sports. The model,12 this is crucial information in injury preven-
severity of injuries differed in the included studies. Since tion. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to sys-
little has been studied regarding possible risk factors to tematically review the various definitions of injuries
injuries, further research is therefore warranted to explain used, the localisation of injuries, the prevalence and
why athletes get injured and how to prevent injuries. incidence of injuries and associated risk factors for
Trial registration number PROSPERO injuries in weightlifting and powerlifting.
CRD42015014805.
METHODS
The methodology was in according to the Preferred
INTRODUCTION Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Olympic weightlifting (hereafter named weightlift- Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).13 The review was regis-
ing) and powerlifting are the most commonly prac- tered in PROSPERO14 before starting the search
ticed strength sports where maximal strength in process in 2015 (id CRD42015014805). The study
one repetition is the primary focus. In weightlifting protocol is available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/
there are two events: the snatch and the clean and prospero/DisplayPDF.php?ID=CRD42015014805.
jerk.1 Powerlifting consists of three events: the
squat, bench press and deadlift.2 The goal of both Eligibility criteria
sports is to lift the maximum weight in each event. Peer-reviewed observational studies, published in
The risk of injury during heavy lifting at work or English and available in full text were included.
during leisure time is a well-recognised problem.3 There was no limitation for publishing year or sex.
In order to secure a balance between total training Studies had to meet the following criteria for inclu-
load and recovery, recommendations about training sion: study population consisting of competitive
To cite: Aasa U, frequency, intensity and volume for resistance train- weightlifters or powerlifters and inclusion of injury
Svartholm I, Andersson F, ing practitioners have been published.4 Other incidence and/or injury prevalence (regardless of
et al. Br J Sports Med factors that have been suggested as risk factors for injury definition, ie, injury could be due to training
2017;51:211–219. injuries are heavy loads in extreme joint positions. only, non-training and/or competition-related).
Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037 1 of 10
 Review

The reason why we chose competitive weightlifters and and Fry17 and Kulund et al23 did not report a classification of
powerlifters as study population was that we wanted to ensure injury severity but rather how long the athlete would be, or had
that the participants in the studies performed the events been, absent from training. In the study by Brown and
included in weightlifting or powerlifting regularly. Studies Kimball16 the athletes self-reported their pain as somewhat
including athletes with a disability were excluded (since these severe, moderate, mild or none. Athletes had to answer if they
athletes do not participate in all events of powerlifting/do not experienced pain: most of the time, always, sometimes, almost
represent the majority of lifters). Further, case studies and/or never and never. Two studies reported only the number of injur-
studies not including all the events of weightlifting or all the ies10 22 and one study assessed the self-reported pain in body
events of powerlifting (in figure 1 named case studies, etc) were regions during the previous week.19 Three studies18 20 22
excluded. defined injuries as acute or chronic. Brown and Kimball16 only
reported injuries with a pathoanatomic diagnosis; for example,
Data collection process and search strategy muscle pull or tendonitis. Injury type was not reported in four
The literature search was performed between 9 March and 6 of the included studies.10 19 22 23
April 2015 by searching the following databases: PubMed,
MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and Web of Science. To Weightlifting
increase sensitivity a broad search strategy was formed for each Six of the included studies reported injuries in weightlift-
database in cooperation with staff at the Medical Library in ing.10 17–19 21 23 Two of the studies reported an injury incidence
Umeå, Sweden (table 1). Titles, abstracts and full texts were between 2.4 and 3.3 injuries/1000 hours of training.17 21 Two
screened individually by two of the four authors (IS and FA). of the studies presented their data as injury proportion (ie, per
Studies with obviously irrelevant titles were excluded. Titles cent of competitors with injury).10 18 Jonasson et al19 presented
were screened twice to minimise the risk of missing relevant the prevalence of pain during the previous year. Kulund et al23
studies. Two of the authors (IS and FA) independently reviewed reported injuries from an undefined period of time. No study
the abstracts and those that did not meet the eligibility criteria identified risk factors for injuries in weightlifting.
were excluded. Thereafter, full text articles were reviewed for a
final exclusion. Also their reference lists were screened for rele- Localisations of injuries
vant articles. During the review of full text articles, a majority Raske and Norlin21 reported that the low back, knee and shoul-
decision was taken in consultation with the coauthors (LB and der areas were the most frequently injured localisation. Calhoon
UA), when disagreements regarding inclusion/exclusion and Fry17 reported the same results as Raske and Norlin.21
occurred. Possible publication bias was not assessed since the Kulund et al23 also reported the shoulder and knees, in addition
aim for this review was to systematically review and summarise to the wrist, as the most commonly injured areas. Jonasson
certain data regarding injuries in weightlifting and powerlifting. et al19 assessed the prevalence of pain during the previous year
Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and and found that pain in the low back was the most common
Cross-sectional Studies15 was used to assess the quality of the area. They also found that half of the participants had experi-
included studies. All authors assessed the studies individually enced pain in the neck and shoulder. The studies by Junge10
and thereafter compared their results. Any disagreements were and Engebretsen18 did not examine the localisations of injuries
discussed until consensus was reached. Every article received a when they investigated injuries during the Olympic Games.
total score according to the assessment tool ( poor, fair or
good). Types of injuries
Injuries to muscles and tendons dominated the injury profiles in
RESULTS weightlifting.10 21 The study by Calhoon and Fry17 reported
The search strategy resulted in 4439 potentially relevant articles. that acute injuries represented 59.6%, chronic 30.4% and 10%
A total of 140 abstracts and 56 full text articles were selected for were of other types. According to Raske and Norlin,21 20% of
review and, of these, 9 studies met the inclusion criteria10 16–22 all injuries were acute muscle injuries and 25% were due to
(figure 1). overuse injuries of tendons. At the Olympic Games 200810 five
of the injured athletes had a rupture in a ligament or a tendon.
Study characteristics The study by Engebretsen et al18 did not specify the type of
Characteristics of the included studies are also presented in table 2. injuries which the weightlifters sustained during the 2012
In total, 472 powerlifters16 20–22 (422 men and 50 women) Olympic Games. Calhoon and Fry17 reported that 90.5% of all
and 663 weightlifters10 18 19 21 23 were analysed in the included injuries forced the athlete to rest for less than a day. They also
studies. The study by Calhoon and Fry17 did not present data of reported that only 0.5% of the injuries lasted for more than
the number of individuals included in the study. The mean com- 3 weeks. The study by Raske and Norlin21 reported that 93% of
petitive experience of all the lifters varied from 17 months16 up the shoulder injuries, 85% of injuries to the low back and 80%
to 12–16 years21 of competitive lifting. The age of the lifters of knee injuries had symptoms that lasted for more than
included in this review varied from adolescent competitors16 up 4 weeks. Kulund et al23 reported that 33% of injuries did not
to competitors in the masters’ class.20 Only one study had a result in any impairment, 30% lasted 1 day to 2 weeks, 34%
control group with inactive persons.19 The study by Raske and between 2 months and 2 years and 5% lasted for more than
Norlin21 compared the top-ranked athletes in Sweden in power- 2 years.
lifting and weightlifting with a control group of non-competing
lifters. Powerlifting
The classification of injuries differed somewhat between the Four of the included studies investigated injuries among power-
included studies. The study by Raske and Norlin21 classified an lifters.16 20–22 Raske and Norlin21 reported injuries from both
injury as severe when symptoms last for more than a month. powerlifting and weightlifting. Three of the studies20–22
The study by Keogh et al20 classified an injury as severe when reported an injury incidence of 1.0–4.4±4.8 injuries/
the athlete was forced to rest for more than a week. Calhoon 1000 hours of training. Brown and Kimball16 did not explicitly
2 of 10 Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037
 Review

Figure 1 PRISMA flow chart of the literature screening. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

report the injury incidence, but from our calculations there was experienced problems in the shoulder and over 40% had been
an injury incidence of 2.9 injuries per 1000 hours training injured in the low back and in the knee. The study by Raske
among the 71 men included in his study. No study identified the and Norlin21 reported that injuries to the shoulder, the low
risk factors for injuries in powerlifting. back and the knee were most common.

Localisations of injuries Types of injuries

Keogh et al20 found that the most common localisation of Keogh et al20 reported that of all the injuries, 60% were acute
injury was the shoulder followed by the low back and the elbow. and the rest were of chronic character. Only 20% of injuries
The study by Brown and Kimball16 reported that half of all the were classified as severe (the lifter had to rest more than a
injuries were localised in the lower back followed by the knee week). In the study by Raske and Norlin,21 the athletes self-
and the chest. The study by Siewe et al22 assessed injuries reported that 25% of their injuries were chronic, 20% were
among German elite powerlifters during their entire career. acute muscle injuries and the rest were not defined. The authors
Half of all the athletes in the study by Siewe et al22 had did not report any difference between weightlifters and
Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037 3 of 10
 Review

was not executed due to the risk of missing relevant articles.

Table 1 Databases used with search words
Three studies24–26 fulfilled all eligibility criteria except the lan-
Database Search words guage hence they were excluded. The populations in these
studies were large; Ren et al26 published an article in Chinese
MEDLINE *
where they included 265 weightlifters which would have been
PubMed *
relevant to this systematic review.
SPORTDiscus *
The quality of the included studies was assessed with an
Scopus **
assessment tool from the US Department of Health.15 The tool
Web of science ***
is constructed to assess observational studies hence it was con-
* (weight lifting OR weightlift* OR weight lift* OR power lift* OR powerlift*)
AND ((injur* OR risk factors OR pain OR overuse syndrome OR athletic injuries)
sidered adequate to this study. It has been used in a
AND (Head OR Ankle OR Knee OR Hip OR Pelvic OR Lumbar OR Low back OR meta-analysis by Shuang et al27 which also contributed to the
Thoracic OR Spine OR cervical OR Neck OR shoulder OR scapula OR Elbow OR choice of assessment tool. Questions 1 and 2 were considered
wrist OR Hand OR foot)) easy to fulfil and therefore the authors (IS and FA) considered
** TITLE-ABS-KEY (weight lifting OR weightlift* OR weight lift* OR power lift* these questions less valuable. Questions 8, 9 and 11 were con-
OR powerlift*) AND (injur* OR risk factors OR pain OR overuse syndrome OR
sidered harder to fulfil, hence they were considered more valu-
athletic injuries) AND (head OR ankle OR knee OR hip OR pelvic OR lumbar OR
low back OR thoracic OR spine OR cervical OR neck OR shoulder OR scapula OR able (table 3). Owing to this, two articles, which fulfilled the
elbow OR wrist OR hand OR foot) same criteria, received different quality ratings. Since there are
*** TS=(powerlift* OR weightlift* OR weight lifting OR power lift*) AND TS= no guidelines on how to deal with issues regarding weighting of
(injur* OR risk factor* OR pain OR overuse syndrome OR athletic injuries) AND different criteria, this could affect the inter-rater reliability of
TS=(Head OR Ankle OR Knee OR Hip OR Pelvic OR Lumbar OR Low back OR the assessment tool.
Thoracic OR Spine OR cervical OR Neck OR shoulder OR scapula OR Elbow OR
wrist OR Hand OR foot)
Two articles which were reviewed but finally excluded were
Bethapudi et al28 and Aggrawal et al29 Bethapudi et al28 was
excluded since they focused on only one type of injury and
therefore their results would not give a broad image of the
powerlifters. Raske and Norlin21 also reported that 93% of the prevalence or incidence of injuries. Aggrawal et al29 was
shoulder injuries, 85% of injuries to the low back and 80% of excluded since it did not meet the eligibility criteria to assess
the knee injuries resulted in symptoms that lasted for more than injury prevalence or incidence among athletes. These exclusions
4 weeks. The study by Brown and Kimball16 reported that were made after discussions between all four authors.
muscle pulls were the most common injury types followed by There are also some limitations of this manuscript. Apart
tendonitis and cramps. The injuries forced the athletes to rest from the fact that there is much heterogeneity in the data and
from training and competition for a mean time of 11.5 days. that most studies are of poor or fair quality, we want to stress
Siewe et al22 found that 22.5% of the shoulder injuries were that this review did not report about specific exercise-related
from unspecified pain and 19.6% were inflammatory. injuries (such as bench press-related or squat-related injuries).
Instead we used the inclusion criteria of competition-related and
training-related injuries and did not focus on specific exercises.
Quality assessment
Further, we included articles that were written in English
The results of the quality assessment are presented in table 3.
although there are other articles written in Chinese and
One study was considered to be of ‘good’ quality.20 This was
German. Since there are relatively few injury epidemiology
the only study that could answer question nine of the assess-
studies published on weight training sports, the addition of a
ment tool ‘Were the exposure measures (independent variables)
few other studies would have added important information.
clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently
The reason why we did not translate the key data from these
across all study participants?’. Four studies were considered to
non-English articles was that we could not translate the articles
be of ‘fair’10 18 19 21 and four were of ‘poor’ quality.16 17 22 23
accurately enough to receive the information that was crucial
for quality assessment.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review consisting of nine articles is the first to RESULTS
investigate definitions of injury, injury localisation, the injury The injury definition in the included articles was partially con-
incidence and prevalence and risk factors across studies in sistent; three articles had used almost identical descriptions
weightlifting and powerlifting. where an injury was defined as a condition that forces the
athlete to refrain or modify training or competition.20–22 Junge
Methodological consideration et al10 and Engebretsen et al18 defined an injury as a musculo-
Five databases were used during the literature search. skeletal condition that had occurred during the Olympic Games
MEDLINE, PubMed and SPORTDiscus were chosen because and that had required medical attention.
they collect studies about sports and they were relevant to this In weightlifting and powerlifting the body is exposed to great
study. Web of Science and Scopus were used in an additional forces since the athlete’s aim is to lift the maximum weight pos-
search to make sure that studies published in social science jour- sible. Since heavy lifting is a well-known injury risk in the
nals were not missed. These five databases were considered general population3 coupled with the complex demands on
adequate to fulfil the aim of the study. We used the same search balance and coordination, one can assume that the risk of injury
words in each database but the search strategy varied somewhat is high. However, the results of the studies included in the
to match each database (table 1). Many of the records screened present systematic review showed that the incidence of injuries
assessed schoolchildren and occupational illnesses. These studies were similar compared to other sports with comparable
could have been avoided if the search strategy had included characteristics to weightlifting and powerlifting, that is, non-
‘NOT school NOT work’. For example, this would have erased contact sports which require strength/power. In weightlifting
one-third of the records on MEDLINE. However, this strategy there were 2.4–3.3 injuries/1000 hours of training17 21 and in
4 of 10 Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037
Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037

Table 2 Study characteristics and results of assessed articles

Injury
Population (quantity, Severity of incidence/
Study Aim Study type sex, experience) injury Injury type prevalence Localisation of injury Exposure

Olympic Describe overuse problems and injuries in Retrospective study. 80 weightlifters, 405 Duration of NA 111 injuries Shoulder 26% NA
weightlifting weightlifting. cumulative years of impairment reported Knee 26%
Kulund et al23 experience No impairment Wrist 20%
33% Elbow 11%
1 day–2 weeks Back 8%
30% Thigh 5%
2 months– Hand 5%
2 years 34% Neck 3%
>2 years 2% Haemorrhoids 3%
Chronic, Hip region 3%
recurrent 3% Calf 2%
Ankle 2%
Hernias 1%
Foot 0%
Olympic To determine injury types, natures, anatomical Retrospective study. Data 853 reported injuries Absence Acute injuries Incidence Low back 23.1% NA
weightlifting locations, recommended amount of time retrieved from injury report from male weightlifting <1 day 90.5% 59.6% 3.3/1000 hours Knee 19.1%
Calhoon and missed, and injury rates during weightlifting forms. athletes at US Olympic <1 week 8.6% Chronic 30.4% training Shoulder 17.7%
Fry17 training. Training Center <3 weeks 0.4% Other types Hand 10%
>3 weeks 0.5% 10% Neck 5.4%
Olympic To analyse the frequency, characteristics, and Prospective study. Data 255 weightlifters NA NA Incidence NA NA
weightlifting causes of injuries incurred during the Summer retrieved from injury report 43 injuries
Junge et al10 Olympic Games 2008. forms. (16.9% of the
competitors)
Olympic To investigate the prevalence of pain in the Retrospective study. Data 21 male weightlifters NA NA Prevalence (pain Low back 35–59%* NA
weightlifting spine and joints in athletes at national top level collected through a during the year) Neck 41–52%*
Jonasson et al19 who were active in five different sports questionnaire. Low back 59% Shoulder 50%*
involving different degrees of load. Neck 52% Thoracic spine
Shoulder 50% 25–44%*
Thoracic spine Elbow 35–35%*
44% Hip 18–31%*
Elbow 35% Ankle 18–27%*
Hip 31% Knee 18–25%*
Ankle 27% Wrist 19–25%*
Knee 25%
Wrist 25%
Olympic The aim of the present paper is to analyse the Prospective study. Data 252 weightlifters (149 Absence Overuse injuries Incidence NA NA
weightlifting injuries and illnesses that occurred in London, retrieved from injury report men, 103 women) ≥1 day 19 34% 44 injuries
Engebretsen with the long-term aim to enable the National forms. injuries (7.5% of (17.5% of the
et al18 Olympic Committees (NOCs) and International the competitors) competitors)
Federations (IF) to improve their work on ≥7 days 11
protection of their athletes’ health. injuries (4.4% of
the competitors)

Review
Continued
5 of 10
6 of 10

Review
Table 2 Continued
Injury
Population (quantity, Severity of incidence/
Study Aim Study type sex, experience) injury Injury type prevalence Localisation of injury Exposure

Powerlifting To construct a profile of the medical history of Retrospective study. Data 71 men Absence Muscle pull Incidence Low back 50% 4.1 times/week
Brown and adolescent powerlifters in order to comprehend collected through a 17.1 months of On average 61.2% 2.9 injuries per Knee 8.2% ≈ 99.2 min/session
Kimball16 more fully the potential for injury in this sport. questionnaire. experience 11.5 days missed Tendonitis 1000 hours Chest 7.1%
per injury 12.2% training Shoulder 6.1%
Crams 10.2% Elbow 6.1%
Sprains 4.1% Hand 4.1%
Abrasions 4.1% Thoracic back 4.1%
Nerve injury Groin 4.1%
3.1% Abdomen 3.1%
Fractures 2% Leg 3.1%
Dislocations 1% Ankle 2%
Others 2% Arm 1%
Forearm 1%
Powerlifting To examine how 4 intrinsic factors would Retrospective study. Data 101 powerlifters Mild 39% Acute 59,3% Incidence Shoulder 36,1% 6.1±2.4 hours/week
Keogh et al20 influence the rate, body region, onset, and collected through a 82 men moderate 39% Chronic 40,7% 1.2±1.1 injury/ Low back 23,7%
severity of power lifting injury as well as the questionnaire. 19 women great 22% lifter/year Elbow 11%
exercises affected, causative exercises, and At least 1 years of 4.4±4.8/ Knee 9,3%
injury treatment options. experience of 1000 hours of Thigh 5,9%
powerlifting training Chest 3,4%
Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037

Arm 2,5%
Thoracic back 1,7%
Hip/buttocks 1,7%
Others 4,2%
Powerlifting To identify problem zones during workouts, Retrospective study. Data 245 powerlifters NA Most common Incidence Shoulder 53.1%** 3–7 times/week
Siewe et al22 rates of injury, as well as interacting factors, to collected through a 219 men shoulder injury: 0.3 injuries/ Low back 40.8%** 119.1±39.7 min/
offer advice to both athletes and sports questionnaire. 26 women Unspecified lifter/year. Knee 39.2%** session
medicine practitioners for injury prevention and At national and pain 22.5% 1 injury/ Elbow 29.8%**
accelerated rehabilitation in the sport of international level. Inflammation 1000 hours of Cervical back 24.5%**
powerlifting. 11 years of median 19.6% training. Hand/wrist 22.9%**
experience Thoracic back/chest
18%**
Ankle and foot
14.3%**
Hip 9%**
Olympic The purpose of this study was to investigate Prospective and retrospective Weightlifters: 93% of shoulder 20% acute Incidence Weightlifters*** 1995:
weightlifting the incidence and prevalence of injuries among study. Data collected through 50 men injuries muscle injuries Weightlifters Shoulder 0.31 and 0.34 520 hours/
and Powerlifting elite weight lifters and power lifters, with a a questionnaire for current 5 women 85% of low 25% overuse 2.4/1000 hours Low back 0.45 and 0.44 year2000:410 hours/
Raske and special focus on shoulder injuries and possible injuries and injuries during Powerlifters: back injuries tendon injuries training Knee 0.43 and 0.49 year
Norlin21 injury-provoking exercises. the past 2 years. 50 men 80% of knee Powerlifters 2.7/ Powerlifters***
5 women injuries lasted 1000 hours Shoulder 0.57 and 0.71
The highest ranked >4 weeks training Low back 0.43 and 0.41
lifters in Sweden. Knee 0.24 and 0.33
Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037

Table 3 Results for the quality assessment with Quality Assessment Tool or Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies
Kulund Calhoon Junge Jonasson Engebretsen Brown and Keogh Siewe Raske and
Criteria/included studies et al23 and Fry17 et al10 et al19 et al18 Kimball16 et al20 et al22 Norlin21

1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? CD CD Y Y Y Y Y CD Y
4. Were all the individuals selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including CD Y N Y N N N N N
the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified
and applied uniformly to all participants?
5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? N N N N N N N N N
6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome N N N N N N N N N
(s) being measured?
7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association N N N N N N N N N
between exposure and outcome if it existed?
8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the N N N N N N Y Y Y
exposure as related to the outcome (eg, categories of exposure, or exposure measured as
continuous variable)?
9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable and N N N N N N Y N N
implemented consistently across all study participants?
10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? N N N N N N N N Y
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable and N Y Y N Y N Y N N
implemented consistently across all study participants?
12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? NA NA N NA N NA NA NA N
13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? NA NA CD NA CD NA NA NA N
14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact N N N N N N N N N
on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?
Quality rating Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Good Poor Fair
CD, Cannot determine; N, No; NA, not applicable; Y, Yes.

Review
7 of 10
 Review

powerlifting the incidence was 1.0–4.4 injuries/1000 hours of quality. The assessment tool we used is made both for cohort
training.16 20–22 In comparison, a study of injuries in track and studies and cross-sectional studies and two questions: number 6
field by Jacobsson et al30 showed an incidence of 3.57 injuries/ ‘For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest
1000 hours of training and a study of injuries in alpine skiing by measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured?’ and number
Westin et al31 showed an incidence of 1.7 injuries/1000 hours of 7 ‘Was the time frame sufficient so that one could reasonably
training. When comparing the results to the incidence of injury expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it
in popular contact sports which also requires strength/power, existed?’ can only be answered for cohort studies. In accordance
for example, American football and wrestling (9.6 injuries/ with the assessment tool these questions have been answered ‘no’
1000 hours of training and 5.7 injuries/1000 hours of training since the included studies are cross-sectional studies. Two other
respectively32), the incidence of injuries in weightlifting and questions were not possible to answer for most of the included
powerlifting could be considered low. The relatively low injury articles: number 12 ‘Were the outcome assessors blinded to the
incidence in weightlifting and powerlifting should be interpreted exposure status of participants?’ and number 13 ‘Was loss to
with the background that most of the included studies were of a follow-up after baseline 20% or less?’ and they have therefore
retrospective design. In studies of injuries in more popular been answered with ‘not applicable’ for most articles. The ques-
sports, a prospective design is more common30–32 and could tions answered ‘no’ may contribute to lowering the methodo-
therefore contribute to reflect a more accurate injury risk by logical quality even though they were not relevant. The questions
reducing the risk for recall bias. Therefore, a suggestion for answered ‘not applicable’ may contribute to risk of bias since
further research in this area is to conduct prospective, rather blinding and follow-up was not made. However, in cross-
than retrospective, studies regarding injury incidence. A further sectional studies blinding and follow-up cannot be made since
recommendation for future research might be to ask the athletes the exposure has already been made and therefore the answers to
to report exposure to particular exercises included in the sports these questions have been ignored.
instead of hours of training. By this approach, the relative risk The problem with the questions answered ‘no’ have been cor-
of particular activities to the injury can be examined. An rected by classifying question 1 ‘Was the research question or
example of this is the study by Winwood et al33 where they objective in this paper clearly stated?’ and question 2 ‘Was the
were able to compare the absolute and relative injury rates to study population clearly specified and defined?’ as less valuable.
strongman events and traditional weight training exercises by an Question 8 ‘For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did
estimate of the time the athletes allocated to specific exercises. the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to
Several studies describe injuries in weightlifting and powerlift- the outcome (eg, categories of exposure, or exposure measured
ing. The relationships between specific exercises included in the as continuous variable)?’, question 9 ‘Were the exposure mea-
sports and the injuries are, however, still unclear. Raske and sures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable and
Norlin21 assessed whether there were any relationships between implemented consistently across all study participants?’ and
shoulder injuries and certain exercises; however, they did not question 11 ‘Were the outcome measures (dependent variables)
find any significant relationships. In the study by Keogh et al,20 clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently
52% of the injuries were caused by the three lifts in powerlift- across all study participants?’ were considered more valuable
ing; however, the authors did not see any indications that a spe- since they were harder to fulfil. This is the reason why the study
cific exercise would lead to more injuries than the others. The by Keogh et al20 has been classified as ‘good’ even though it has
other articles included in the present study did not assess risk only answered ‘yes’ to 6 of the 14 questions.
factors which resulted in that we could not describe any risk It is not easy to compare the results of the included studies
factors for the injuries that occur in weightlifting or powerlift- since they used different methods and different ways of present-
ing. However, a study that was excluded due to its study ing their data. For example, regarding time periods, Jonasson
design34 had collected 60 cases of pectoralis major ruptures and et al19 assessed if and where athletes had pain during the previ-
80% of the ruptures had occurred during the bench press exer- ous year whereas the study by Junge et al10 assessed acute injur-
cise. This suggests that there might in fact be a relationship ies during the Olympic Games 2008. These data-collection
between the bench press exercise and injuries to the pectoralis periods probably differed in terms of exercise intensity and it
muscle, and strengthens the above suggestion that future studies makes the results from Junge et al10 difficult to compare with
should include reports of exposure to certain exercises rather the studies assessing injury prevalence/incidence during an
than hours of training. ordinary training period.
An important factor that might have influence on the relation- The fact that the included studies used different methods for
ships between exposure to training and injury is the use of ana- data collection also contributed to difficulties in making fair
bolic androgenic steroids. So far, only case studies35 36 have comparisons between studies. Six studies16 19–23 collected data
suggested that there might be a relationship between use of ana- by self-report from the athletes. The three other included
bolic androgenic steroids and injuries: Sollender et al36 described studies10 17 18 collected their data through medical records. In
four cases of distal ruptures of the triceps brachii muscle where studies with self-report there is a risk of underestimating the
three of the patients had their injury while performing bench true number of injuries since the athletes may have forgotten
press. In a study by de Castro Pochini et al,34 96% of the partici- injuries that were not of great severity and therefore have not
pants who suffered an injury due to bench press, had also used reported them. This can be the reason why the majority of
anabolic androgenic steroids. With this in mind, the use of ster- injuries in the study by Raske and Norlin21 were rated severe. In
oids might be an important mediator in the process of developing Calhoon’s and Fry’s study17 minor injuries are over-represented
injuries and future studies should always enquire about steroid which can be explained that the athletes were in living in a
use. In the study by Keogh et al20 the authors state that they did training facility with constant access to medical staff that could
not know whether the athletes had used steroids or not, and the examine them every time they felt pain. These examinations
other included articles do not mention the issue at all. would then have been recorded as an injury.
The included studies in this systematic review are, according to In weightlifting and powerlifting injuries to the shoulder,
the assessment tool, generally of ‘poor’ or ‘fair’ methodological knee and low back were common. Knee injuries were more
8 of 10 Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037
 Review

common in weightlifting and Keogh et al20 states that a reason Competing interests None declared.
for this might be that the weightlifters perform squats with the Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
barbell resting on the upper parts of the trapezius muscle with a
vertical back position which results in greater torque around the REFERENCES
knees joints. 1 IWF. International Weightlifting Federation. http://www.iwf.net (accessed 13 May
In this review, shoulder injuries were more common among 2016).
powerlifters than weightlifters. A possible explanation may be 2 IPF. International Powerlifting Federation. http://www.powerlifting-ipf.com/ (accessed
13 May 2016).
the bench press exercise. Green and Comfort37 describes bench 3 Hoogendoorn WE, van Poppel MN, Bongers PM, et al. Physical load during work
press with a wide grip as risky because the shoulder joint is in and leisure time as risk factors for back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health
an abducted and externally rotated position. Since the aim is to 1999;25:387–403.
lift the heaviest weight possible, one can postulate that the 4 American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position
stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports
athlete often use a wide grip allowing them to make the lift as
Exerc 2009;41:687–708.
short as possible, thus perhaps increasing injury risk to the 5 Gross ML, Brenner SL, Esformes I, et al. Anterior shoulder instability in weight
shoulder. What contradicts this is that weightlifters also are lifters. Am J Sports Med 1993;21:599–603.
exposed to this extreme position of the shoulder joint when per- 6 Kujala UM, Kettunen J, Paananen H, et al. Knee osteoarthritis in former runners,
forming the snatch. However, the weights used in bench press soccer players, weight lifters, and shooters. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:539–46.
7 Hartmann H, Wirth K, Klusemann M. Analysis of the load on the knee joint and
are often much higher than the weights used in snatch, for vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and weight load. Sports Med
example, the world record in bench press is 275 kg2 and the 2013;43:993–1008.
world record in snatch is 216 kg1 in respective heavyweight 8 Cholewicki J, McGill SM, Norman RW. Lumbar spine loads during the lifting of
divisions. It should, however, also be said that the relevance of extremely heavy weights. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991;23:1179–86.
9 Keogh JWL. Weightlifting. In: Caine D, Harmer P, Schiff M, eds. The encyclopedia of
these possible explanations in relation to shoulder pain in
sports medicine: the epidemiology of injury in Olympic Sports. Oxford, UK:
weightlifting or powerlifting has not, to the best of our knowl- Blackwell, 2009:336–50.
edge, been investigated. 10 Junge A, Engebretsen L, Mountjoy ML, et al. Sports injuries during the Summer
Olympic Games 2008. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:2165–72.
CONCLUSION 11 Timpka T, Jacobsson J, Bickenbach J, et al. What is a sports injury? Sports Med
According to the studies included in this systematic review, 2014;44:423–8.
12 van Mechelen W, Hlobil H, Kemper HC. Incidence, severity, aetiology and
injury incidence in weightlifting and powerlifting is similar to prevention of sports injuries. A review of concepts. Sports Med 1992;14:82–99.
other non-contact sports and low compared to contact sports. 13 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting
The shoulders, low back and knee regions were the most systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare
common injury localisations; however, the reported severity of interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:e1–34.
14 PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2015. Injuries
the injuries differed between studies. among weightlifters and powerlifters—a systematic review. http://www.crd.york.ac.
Since no study identified the possible risk factors, most uk/prospero/DisplayPDF.php?ID=CRD42015014805
studies were of retrospective design and generally of ‘poor’ or 15 National Institution of Health: U.S Department of Health and Human Services.
‘fair’ quality; the information received from this systematic Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. 2015.
review is insufficient to address the potential for prevention. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-
reduction/tools/cohort
Future studies are needed to describe the specific injury types 16 Brown EW, Kimball RG. Medical history associated with adolescent powerlifting.
and risk factors for injuries in weightlifting and powerlifting. Pediatrics 1983;72:636–44.
17 Calhoon G, Fry AC. Injury rates and profiles of elite competitive weightlifters. J Athl
Train 1999;34:232–8.
18 Engebretsen L, Soligard T, Steffen K, et al. Sports injuries and illnesses during the
What are the findings? London Summer Olympic Games 2012. Br J Sports Med 2013;47:407–14.
19 Jonasson P, Halldin K, Karlsson J, et al. Prevalence of joint-related pain in the
extremities and spine in five groups of top athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol
▸ Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting are popular sports Arthrosc 2011;19:1540–6.
and recreational activities. 20 Keogh J, Hume PA, Pearson S. Retrospective injury epidemiology of one hundred
▸ The risk of injury during heavy lifting and lifting in extreme one competitive Oceania power lifters: the effects of age, body mass, competitive
standard, and gender. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20:672–81.
joint positions is a well-recognised problem in work-related 21 Raske A, Norlin R. Injury incidence and prevalence among elite weight and power
studies. lifters. Am J Sports Med 2002;30:248–56.
▸ Factors associated with injuries in Olympic weightlifting and 22 Siewe J, Rudat J, Rollinghoff M, et al. Injuries and overuse syndromes in
powerlifting have rarely been studied. powerlifting. Int J Sports Med 2011;32:703–11.
23 Kulund DN, Dewey JB, Brubaker CE, et al. Olympic weight-lifting injuries. Phys
Sportsmed 1978;6:111–16.
24 Konig M, Biener K. [Sport-specific injuries in weight lifting]. Schweiz Z Sportmed
1990;38:25–30.
25 Goertzen M, Schoppe K, Lange G, et al. [Injuries and damage caused by
How might it impact on clinical practice in the future? excess stress in body building and power lifting]. Sportverletz Sportschaden
1989;3:32–6.
26 Ren Y, Rong J, Shi H, et al. An epidemiological survey and comparative study of the
▸ The incidence of injuries was low to moderate in Olympic injuries in weightlifting. Sports Science 2000;20:44–6.
weightlifting and powerlifting and the most common areas 27 Shuang F, Hou SX, Zhu JL, et al. Percutaneous resolution of lumbar facet joint
for injuries were the spine, knee and shoulder. cysts as an alternative treatment to surgery: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2014;9:
▸ So far, only one study has investigated the possible risk e111695.
28 Bethapudi S, Robinson P, Engebretsen L, et al. Elbow injuries at the London 2012
factors.
Summer Olympic Games: demographics and pictorial imaging review. AJR Am
▸ Generally, the methodological quality of the included studies J Roentgenol 2013;201:535–49.
was low. 29 Aggrawal ND, Kaur R, Kumar S, et al. A study of changes in the spine in weight
▸ In order to suggest preventive measures, high-quality studies lifters and other athletes. Br J Sports Med 1979;13:58–61.
which also assess possible risk factors are needed. 30 Jacobsson J, Timpka T, Kowalski J, et al. Injury patterns in Swedish elite athletics:
annual incidence, injury types and risk factors. Br J Sports Med 2013;47:941–52.

Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037 9 of 10

 Review
31 Westin M, Alricsson M, Werner S. Injury profile of competitive alpine skiers: a 60 cases: a prospective study and literature review. Am J Sports Med
five-year cohort study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012;20:1175–81. 2014;42:95–102.
32 Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary 35 Schultzel MM, Johnson MH, Rosenthal HG. Bilateral deltoid myositis ossificans in a
and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train 2007;42:311–19. weightlifter using anabolic steroids. Orthopedics 2014;37:e844–7.
33 Winwood PW, Hume PA, Cronin JB, et al. Retrospective injury epidemiology of 36 Sollender JL, Rayan GM, Barden GA. Triceps tendon rupture in weight lifters.
strongman athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2014;28:28–42. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1998;7:151–3.
34 de Castro Pochini A, Andreoli CV, Belangero PS, et al. Clinical considerations 37 Green CM, Comfort P. The affect of grip width on bench press performance and
for the surgical treatment of pectoralis major muscle ruptures based on risk of injury. Strength Cond J 2007;29:10–14.

10 of 10 Aasa U, et al. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:211–219. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037