We only have this paper's title and publication details.
Crd42018093527.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Figure 1. Flow chart of study selection.
Figure 2. Meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of reducing overall injury for the exercise-based intervention groups compared with control groups. Note: the size of the boxes around each diamond are proportional to the weight of each study, and the horizontal lines represent the 95% CI. The open diamond represents the pooled overall injury incidence rate ratio (IRR) and its width represents its 95% CI. The studies by Espinosa et al 51 and Söderman et al 56 were separated due to only including one exercise-based training component. Studies by Gilchrist et al 52 and Waldén et al 59 only reported knee injuries, and thus the values for overall injuries are taken from knee injuries.
Figure 3. Meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of reducing ACL, knee, ankle, hip/groin and hamstring injuries for the exercise-based intervention groups compared with control groups. Note: the size of the boxes around each diamond are proportional to the weight of each study, and the horizontal lines represent the 95% CI. The open diamond represents the pooled overall injury incidence rate ratio (IRR) and its width represents its 95% CI. For ACL injuries, the studies by Barber Foss et al 49 and Rössler et al 55 were unable to be included in the meta-analysis as both the intervention and control groups reported no ACL injuries.104 For all meta-analyses, studies reporting no injuries in one group (either intervention or control) had a fixed correction applied to both groups of 0.5 as suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.104
Crossley et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: