↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy of exercise in preventing injury in adult male football: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
Title
The efficacy of exercise in preventing injury in adult male football: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40798-014-0004-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Porter, Alison Rushton

Abstract

Injury prevention measures might reduce the impact of injury on footballers and football clubs. Increasing research has evaluated the use of exercise for injury prevention. However, research has focused on adolescent females. No high-quality systematic reviews have evaluated the efficacy of all forms of exercise on preventing injury in adult male football. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of exercise in preventing injury in adult male football. Comprehensive searches of electronic databases CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED (The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro (The Physiotherapy Evidence Database), SPORTDiscus™, the National Research Register, Current Controlled Trials website (York), and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov were conducted using predefined search terms to identify relevant studies published up to 1 March 2013. Screening of references, searches of grey literature, and hand searches of relevant journals were also employed. Included studies were randomized controlled trials using injury incidence as an outcome measure to evaluate the efficacy of an exercise intervention on uninjured male footballers aged 16 years and over. Articles not written in English were excluded. Two researchers independently searched data sources, screened studies for eligibility, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data using predefined criteria. Risk of bias of included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. There was insufficient trial comparability (outcome measures, interventions, injury type) for meta-analysis, and a qualitative analysis was performed. Eight trials (n = 3,355) from five countries met the inclusion criteria. All trials were assessed as having a high risk of bias. Two trials reported statistically significant reductions in hamstring injuries with eccentric exercise, and two reported statistically significant reductions in recurrent ankle sprains with proprioceptive exercise. Four trials showed no statistically significant difference in injury incidence with exercise interventions targeting a range of injuries. Notable limitations of included trials included poor reporting and limited blinding. A high risk of bias and insufficient comparability across trials prevented quantitative data synthesis. Limitations in the context of study quality and heterogeneity resulted in an inability to reach a clear conclusion regarding efficacy of exercise for injury prevention in adult male football. Future low risk of bias, properly powered, and comprehensively reported trials are warranted to evaluate the efficacy of exercise on injury prevention. The use of eccentric hamstring exercise for hamstring injury prevention and proprioceptive training for recurrent ankle sprain prevention might be a good focus for future trials, as existing trials with a high risk of bias suggest an effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 206 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 17%
Student > Master 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 5%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 64 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 41 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 18%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 <1%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 72 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,395,402
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#219
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,568
of 359,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them