Scoping review on health risks associated with hypermobility and assessment methods, highlighting prevention strategies.
Introduction Joint hypermobility (JH) is the capability of one or more joints to move actively or passively beyond normal limits along physiological axes, leading to an increase in the risk of injuries and fatigue, and decreased quality of life (QoL). Therefore, this study aimed to review the current assessment tools for JH, health risk factors, and prevention strategies. Methods A scoping review was conducted on concepts of JH, injury, and prevention over the past 11 years (2014–2024). Subjects, measurement methods, comparison, and main results obtained were first categorised, then summarised based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Methodological quality assessment was not performed, while OSF registration was conducted retrospectively (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/CM6YU). Results A total of 36 studies evaluating the risk and therapy prospects for hypermobility in adolescents and adults were extracted from PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, and Scopus. The main results showed that: (1) The majority of the studies used the Beighton score (BS) to determine JH. (2) JH was commonly associated with pain, instability, muscle weakness, and fatigue. (3) To prevent chronic injuries, early assessment, public education, and individualised training were required for hypermobility, which could also be acquired naturally. Conclusions This study showed that JH was primarily determined using the BS. JH associated with chronic pain, muscle instability, weakness, and fatigue led to a decline in QoL. Adequate nutrition as well as specific and individualised training were necessary due to the degree of hypermobility and symptoms, generally including proprioceptive, perturbation, adequate strength, and postural balance exercises.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meiliana et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: