Back

Hypermobility and Injury Among Instrumental Musicians: A Scoping Review

King, M. L.; Macdonald, H. M.

2025-08-14 occupational and environmental health
10.1101/2025.08.13.25333390
Show abstract

ObjectiveUp to 86% of musicians experience playing-related musculoskeletal problems (PRMPs). Joint hypermobility (JH), which affects up to 34% of the population, may be a risk factor for such injuries, however, research on this topic is limited. The aims in this scoping review are to: (1) map information in existing literature on the relationship between JH and PRMPs in instrumental musicians, (2) identify subpopulations at risk of JH-related injuries, and (3) map supportive strategies used to accommodate hypermobile instrumentalists. DesignThe review was conducted following JBI methodology and adapted for a masters thesis. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Music Index, SPORTDiscus, and gray literature databases, using keywords related to "instrumental musicians" and "hypermobility," resulting in 1570 sources. ResultsOf 165 relevant sources, 79 included original data on hypermobility, with only 30 primarily focused on JH. Most sources were published among populations primarily of European descent and adults ages 18-40 in professional or post-secondary classical settings. Research gaps identified include studies addressing hormonal influences on joint laxity, non-European populations, children, amateur musicians, and neurodivergent individuals. Sources containing original JH information consisted of 45% empirical studies (mostly prevalence) and 55% anecdotal reports. In 72% of all sources, authors concluded JH negatively impacts musicians. ConclusionsInconsistent results among empirical studies and incongruences between results and anecdotal evidence are indicative of methodological weaknesses. Limitations in measurement tools were noted, affecting study design and data interpretation. Future researchers should conduct qualitative research to capture experiences of hypermobile musicians to inform study design. They should expand quantitative methods, particularly longitudinal and randomized controlled trials, and incorporate sensitive, joint-specific assessments. Training for healthcare professionals, musicians, and music teachers should include JH and health impacts on musicians to ensure accurate research design and interpretation. RegistratioThe scoping review protocol (https://osf.io/c5rzn) was previously registered and published on the Open Science Framework (OSF) along with all official documents, search query strings, and raw data (https://osf.io/6jynk/). STRENTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDYO_LIThis is the first review focused on instrumental musicians with joint hypermobility. C_LIO_LIA thorough and detailed search strategy was developed with the assistance of expert research librarians and the review was conducted in accordance with the JBI scoping review manual and PRISMA-Scr guidelines, except where noted. C_LIO_LIThe review was conducted as a masters thesis requirement for Radford University. Due to time and resource constraints, only one reviewer was involved in data extraction and analysis with oversight of a research committee. C_LIO_LIAs is standard with scoping reviews, sources were not evaluated for quality, therefore, conclusions cannot be generalized. C_LI

Matching journals

1
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 3%
5.5× avg
2
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 42%
11.9%
3
Systematic Reviews
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
#1
98× avg
4
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Frontiers Media SA · based on 56 published papers
Top 1%
20× avg
5
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
MDPI AG · based on 116 published papers
Top 2%
8.1× avg
6
Journal of Occupational Health
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.3%
112× avg
7
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 39%
4.8%
8
JAMA Network Open
American Medical Association (AMA) · based on 125 published papers
Top 3%
6.6× avg
9
Medicine
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 29 published papers
Top 3%
7.8× avg
10
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
BMJ · based on 32 published papers
Top 2%
15× avg
11
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 17 published papers
Top 0.6%
29× avg
12
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
BMJ · based on 15 published papers
Top 0.5%
30× avg
13
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 12 published papers
Top 1.0%
19× avg
14
Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 18 published papers
Top 1%
17× avg
15
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Frontiers Media SA · based on 11 published papers
Top 1%
13× avg
16
Epidemiology and Infection
Cambridge University Press (CUP) · based on 80 published papers
Top 9%
2.5× avg
17
Psychiatry Research
Elsevier BV · based on 33 published papers
Top 4%
4.4× avg
18
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Wiley · based on 21 published papers
Top 2%
6.7× avg
19
PeerJ
PeerJ · based on 46 published papers
Top 9%
2.6× avg
20
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ · based on 32 published papers
Top 2%
5.3× avg
21
Archives of Public Health
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 12 published papers
Top 1%
10× avg