Effect of Conservative Interventions for Musculoskeletal Disorders in Preprofessional and Professional Dancers: A Systematic Review.
Justine Benoit-Piau, Christophe Benoit-Piau, Nathaly Gaudreault and 1 others
PMID 37020446WHAT IT FOUND
The only randomized trial found a conditioning program reduced pain and low back injuries but not aerobic capacity or strength.
Dry needling showed no benefit for pain or range of motion. The remaining evidence came from uncontrolled studies with small samples.
Key findings
01The only RCT (N=44) found a 4-month program combining aerobic endurance, strength, proprioception, and motor control training reduced pain on the SF-36 (p=0.031) and low back injuries (p=0.019) versus a health education control, but showed no difference in aerobic capacity or explosive strength. The contribution of any single component cannot be separated.
02A pilot RCT (N=11) found that bilateral dry needling on triceps surae trigger points, given alongside two 30-second passive stretches, produced no significant difference in pain (p≥0.246) or ankle range of motion (p≥0.093) compared to sham needling with the same stretches.
03A crossover study (N=10) found customized toe caps reduced pain (p<0.001) and toe deviation angle (p<0.001) compared to standard toe caps in dancers with hallux valgus or first metatarsophalangeal joint sprain.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 8 studies were included, and 6 of them were rated poor or fair on risk of bias. Most studies had no control group, no blinding of participants or staff, and no sample size calculation to justify the number of participants. No studies reported adverse events. The conditioning programs combined multiple components (aerobic, strength, proprioception, motor control), so the effect of any single element cannot be separated. The populations varied widely in professional status and dance style, making it hard to generalise across all dancers. No meta-analysis was attempted, so findings could not be pooled quantitatively. The review retained all studies regardless of quality, so the overall picture is pulled down by the weakest designs.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the improvements in aerobic capacity, strength, and balance reported in the uncontrolled studies as proof that conditioning programs work. The only randomized trial found no difference in those outcomes between the conditioning group and the control group, and the uncontrolled studies had no comparison group to rule out natural improvement or placebo effect.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →