British athletics muscle injury classification: a reliability study for a new grading system

Time to return to full training is delayed and recurrence rate is higher in intratendinous (‘c’) acute hamstring injury in elite track and field athletes: clinical application of the British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification

“…A recent study has demonstrated its reproducibility and reliability 6. This current clinical study provides supportive evidence for aspects of the new classification and its ability to provide relevant information for clinicians in daily practice in track and field.…”

“…The grading of injuries from 1 to 4 is based on the MRI measurements of cross-sectional area (CSA) and length of injury within the muscle or tendon. The British Athletics classification system has been demonstrated to have excellent interobserver reliability rates (κ IRR 0.80 and 0.88)6 and MRI parameters in hamstring injury have previously also been shown to demonstrate excellent reliability 7…”

MR Imaging of Muscle Trauma: Anatomy, Biomechanics, Pathophysiology, and Imaging Appearance

“…This system additionally stratifies strain into initial injury or reinjury at a site of prior tissue damage, reflecting the average 30% longer recovery time for reinjury at sites of preexisting tissue damage (28,84) (Fig 39). Early studies assessing the utility of these comprehensive systems suggest that classifications incorporating mechanism, clinical assessment, and imaging findings reflecting the precise location and extent of injury improve prognostic accuracy (83,85).…”

Quality assessment of muscle injury classification in sports: a systematic literature review l

“…The most frequently assessed muscle group was hamstrings. Eight studies evaluated hamstring injuries isolated 15,18,20,[25][26][27]29,31 , while 3 studies included more muscle groups: Corazza et al 22 and Ekstrand et al 30 assessed injuries of the thigh and Takebayashi et al 17 assessed hamstrings, quadriceps and calves. One study evaluated lesions of the rectus femoris muscle 19 and the 5 other studies did not define which muscle group were evaluated 8,14,21,24,28 .…”

“…Regarding to clinical outcome, in 8 studies it wasn't assessed 8,14,19,21,24,28,31 . The other 9 studies reached a clinical endpoint and return to sports was the chosen target condition in all these research.…”