There are more football injury prevention reviews than randomised controlled trials. Time for more RCT action!

Juhl, Carsten Bogh; Bizzini, Mario; Andersen, Thor Einar; Thorborg, Kristian

doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099373

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…28 In addition, there is evidence that a subgroup of female athletes, that is, elite youth female athletes, are at a higher risk of injury. 49 More high-quality studies are needed, especially with high-risk subgroups (eg, youth elite female athletes), to strengthen our findings and to provide information on how health and football policy makers can adopt and optimise exercise-based prevention programmes across all ages and skill levels (ie, amateurs vs professionals and youth vs adult players).…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Despite the advance in football prevention strategies, there is still a lack of randomised trials investigating non-contact musculoskeletal injuries, especially among high-risk populations (eg, elite youth female players). 49 Ninety per cent (n=9) of the included studies did not report non-contact injuries in training and matches separately; therefore, we were not able to report injury incidence separately for training and matches. Finally, our search strategy identified three ongoing trials that might change our current estimates and should be considered for future reviews.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Review And The Available Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do exercise-based prevention programmes reduce non-contact musculoskeletal injuries in football (soccer)? A systematic review and meta-analysis with 13 355 athletes and more than 1 million exposure hours

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of exercise-based programmes in the prevention of non-contact musculoskeletal injuries among football players in comparison to a control group.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from the earliest record to January 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies were eligible if they (1) included football players aged 13 years or older, (2) used exercise-based programmes as intervention, (3) presented the number of non-contact musculoskeletal injuries (ie, defined as any acute sudden onset musculoskeletal injury that occurred without physical contact) and exposure hours for each group, and (4) had a control group (eg, usual training, minimal intervention, education). All types of exercise-based prevention programmes were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for each included study and overall quality of evidence for the meta-analysis were assessed.ResultsTen original randomised controlled trials with 13 355 football players and 1 062 711 hours of exposure were selected. Pooled injury risk ratio showed very low-quality evidence that exercise-based prevention programmes reduced the risk of non-contact musculoskeletal injuries by 23% (0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.97)) compared with a control group.ConclusionExercise-based prevention programmes may reduce the risk of non-contact musculoskeletal injuries by 23% among football players. Future high-quality trials are still needed to clarify the role of exercise-based programmes in preventing non-contact musculoskeletal injuries among football players.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020173017.

show abstract

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Review And The Available Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Do exercise-based prevention programmes reduce non-contact musculoskeletal injuries in football (soccer)? A systematic review and meta-analysis with 13 355 athletes and more than 1 million exposure hours

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A call for more RCTs was made in a recent BJSM editorial 29. Sports injury clinicians seek evidence-based knowledge on treatment options that ensure a fast recovery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in sports injury research: authors—please report the compliance with the intervention

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aim to prevent sports injuries, the intention-to-treat principle is a recommended analysis method and one emphasised in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement that guides quality reporting of such trials. However, an important element of injury prevention trials—compliance with the intervention—is not always well-reported. The purpose of the present educational review was to describe the compliance during follow-up in eight large-scale sports injury trials and address compliance issues that surfaced. Then, we discuss how readers and researchers might consider interpreting results from intention-to-treat analyses depending on the observed compliance with the intervention.MethodsData from seven different randomised trials and one experimental study were included in the present educational review. In the trials that used training programme as an intervention, we defined full compliance as having completed the programme within ±10% of the prescribed running distance (ProjectRun21 (PR21), RUNCLEVER, Start 2 Run) or time-spent-running in minutes (Groningen Novice Running (GRONORUN)) for each planned training session. In the trials using running shoes as the intervention, full compliance was defined as wearing the prescribed running shoe in all running sessions the participants completed during follow-up.ResultsIn the trials that used a running programme intervention, the number of participants who had been fully compliant was 0 of 839 (0%) at 24-week follow-up in RUNCLEVER, 0 of 612 (0%) at 14-week follow-up in PR21, 12 of 56 (21%) at 4-week follow-up in Start 2 Run and 8 of 532 (1%) at 8-week follow-up in GRONORUN. In the trials using a shoe-related intervention, the numbers of participants who had been fully compliant at the end of follow-up were 207 of 304 (68%) in the 21 week trial, and 322 of 423 (76%), 521 of 577 (90%), 753 of 874 (86%) after 24-week follow-up in the other three trials, respectively.ConclusionThe proportion of runners compliant at the end of follow-up ranged from 0% to 21% in the trials using running programme as intervention and from 68% to 90% in the trials using running shoes as intervention. We encourage sports injury researchers to carefully assess and report the compliance with intervention in their articles, use appropriate analytical approaches and take compliance into account when drawing study conclusions. In studies with low compliance, G-estimation may be a useful analytical tool provided certain assumptions are met.

show abstract

“…Moreover, there was not a control group either. On the other hand, the present study population is the highest elite and most popular of professional soccer, which is poorly investigated [14]. Furthermore, although it is a popular topic in practical environment, this is the first study investigating the strategy of personal strength and conditioning coach in topelite soccer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Is it Valuable for Top Elite Footballers to Adopt a Personal Strength and Conditioning Coach? A Brief Report

Grazioli¹,

Pedro²,

Leonel³

et al. 2019

Int J Sports Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Some athletes have been particularly adopted personal strength and conditioning coaches during their day to day routines. However, there are no studies about this complementary management. The present study aimed to screen injury incidence, match play, and market value parameters of topelite soccer players during seasons with and without a personal strength and conditioning coach. Methods: Seven topelite footballers of five European clubs (27 ± 2-years-old; 80 ± 8 kg; 185 ± 9 cm) participated. Data were assessed from two seasons: The season before personal coaching (2015/16); and the season after personal coaching (2016/17). It was assessed the number of injuries, days lost due to injuries, number of games, played minutes, goals, goals assistance, and market value. Results: After implementing the personal training interventions, there was an individual decrease in number of injuries (50%) and days lost due to injuries (77%) that was accompanied by increases in the number of games, played minutes, goals, goals assistance, and market value of all athletes. Conclusion: This positive sequence we called "Benefits cycle" since all parameters were concurrently improved. Although it is not possible to establish any causal relationship, the strategy of a personal strength and conditioning coach could be interesting and deserve future scientific caution to help on daily managing the footballers' physical status and prevent injuries.

show abstract

There are more football injury prevention reviews than randomised controlled trials. Time for more RCT action!

Cited by 7 publications

References 6 publications

Do exercise-based prevention programmes reduce non-contact musculoskeletal injuries in football (soccer)? A systematic review and meta-analysis with 13 355 athletes and more than 1 million exposure hours

Do exercise-based prevention programmes reduce non-contact musculoskeletal injuries in football (soccer)? A systematic review and meta-analysis with 13 355 athletes and more than 1 million exposure hours

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in sports injury research: authors—please report the compliance with the intervention

Is it Valuable for Top Elite Footballers to Adopt a Personal Strength and Conditioning Coach? A Brief Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About