MGMIMass Gathering Medicine

← Library

AI-DRAFTED — PHYSICIAN REVIEW IN PROGRESSThe citation for this entry was checked against Crossref and PubMed, but its summary and interpretation were drafted by an AI model from the published abstract and have not yet been individually read by a physician. Read the linked source before relying on this operationally.
Paper ✓ verified

Preparing for Potential Health and Safety Risks at the Olympic Games: Scoping Review[1]

Ren S, Li T, Zhang Y, Bai S, Zhou Z, Li S · 2025 · JMIR Public Health Surveill

Summary

Scoping review (Arksey and O'Malley 5-step framework; PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus) mapping the evidence on illness, injury and terrorism at the Olympic Games, explicitly framed by mass-gathering medicine and aimed at lessons for organising major international sporting events. From 9,587 retrieved records the authors included 120 studies - only 12 published before 2000 and 108 from 2000 onward - of which 80 were illness-related, 81 injury-related and just 2 terrorism-related. Nine studies assessed specific body parts (including shoulders, feet and dentistry), 26 investigated specific conditions (COVID-19, heat-related illness, concussion), and 18 analysed specific sports (e.g., gymnastics, weightlifting), with 11 focused on COVID-19. The most-studied editions were Tokyo 2021, London 2012 and Rio 2016. The authors describe Olympic injury/illness surveillance as evolving through three stages - a first trial of information technology, the construction of networks, and the enhancement of intelligence - and conclude that surveillance still needs improvement in technology, data sharing and privacy protection.

So what

A recent, comprehensive map of the Olympic-Games evidence base - useful to the library as an orientation and gap-finding reference for the mega-event planning cluster (the FIFA 2026 -> LA 2028 material) rather than as a source of rates. Two things stand out for planning. First, the striking imbalance of the literature: 80 illness and 81 injury studies but only 2 on terrorism, despite the review's own framing of the Games as a terrorist target - a concrete signal that the deliberate-attack evidence base for mega-events is thin, which supports the library's decision to build the counter-terror shelf from adjacent (non-Olympic) sources. Second, the three-stage surveillance evolution (IT trial -> networks -> intelligence) is a clean narrative spine for the surveillance-stack page, and the closing call for better data-sharing and privacy protection is the same tension that material already tracks. Caveat: a scoping review maps and categorises the literature - it does not pool effect sizes or give presentation rates - so cite it for the landscape, the research-gap signal (terrorism, privacy) and the surveillance-maturation frame, not for any incidence figure.

Key findings

  • Scoping review (Arksey & O'Malley); 9,587 records retrieved, 120 studies included (12 pre-2000, 108 from 2000 on)
  • 80 illness-related, 81 injury-related, and only 2 terrorism-related studies - a thin deliberate-attack evidence base despite the stated threat
  • Most-studied editions: Tokyo 2021, London 2012, Rio 2016; 11 studies on COVID-19; others on heat illness and concussion
  • Olympic surveillance described as evolving in 3 stages: first IT trial -> network construction -> enhancement of intelligence
  • Concludes surveillance needs better technology, data sharing and privacy protection - cite for landscape/gaps, not rates (scoping review)

Read the paper