↓ Skip to main content

How Effective are F-MARC Injury Prevention Programs for Soccer Players? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
175 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
How Effective are F-MARC Injury Prevention Programs for Soccer Players? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0404-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wesam Saleh A. Al Attar, Najeebullah Soomro, Evangelos Pappas, Peter J. Sinclair, Ross H. Sanders

Abstract

The FIFA Medical and Research Centre (F-MARC) has designed a comprehensive warm-up program targeting muscular strength, body kinaesthetic awareness, and neuromuscular control during static and dynamic movements to decrease injury risk for soccer players. Prior studies have investigated the effectiveness of the F-MARC programs, but have not consistently reported a statistically significant reduction in injury and reduction in time loss due to injury from utilizing the program. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and interventional studies that evaluated the efficacy of the F-MARC injury prevention programs in soccer. Two independent researchers searched the relevant article databases. The keyword domains used during the search were 'F-MARC', 'FIFA 11+', 'the 11+', 'injury prevention programs', 'soccer', and variations of these keywords. The initial search resulted in 4299 articles which were filtered to nine articles that met the inclusion criteria. Main inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or interventional studies, use of F-MARC injury prevention programs, and the primary outcome measuring overall and lower extremity injuries. Extracted data were entered and analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 2 (CMA.V2). The pooled results based on total injuries per 1000 h of exposure showed that F-MARC injury prevention programs had a statistically significant reduction in the overall injury risk ratio of 0.771 (95 % CI 0.647-0.918, p = 0.003) and the lower extremity injury risk ratio of 0.762 (95 % CI 0.621-0.935, p = 0.009). Moreover, FIFA '11+' had a statistically significant reduction in the overall injury risk ratio to 0.654 (95 % CI 0.537-0.798, p < 0.001) and the lower extremity injury risk ratio of 0.612 (95 % CI 0.475-0.788, p < 0.001). However, FIFA '11' did not reach significance for the lower extremity and overall injury reduction. It can be suggested that teams involved in the FIFA '11+' warm-up program will reduce injury rates by between 20 and 50 % in the long term compared with the teams that do not engage in F-MARC programs. This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that use of F-MARC injury prevention programs, particularly the '11+' program, decreases the risk of injuries among soccer players. These data also support the case for the development and introduction of sport-specific programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 175 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 147 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 23%
Student > Bachelor 29 19%
Unspecified 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Other 13 9%
Other 39 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 46 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 26%
Unspecified 30 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 14 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#114,925
of 13,592,232 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#116
of 2,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,122
of 248,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#6
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,592,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 248,503 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.