Why the study?
The study aimed to identify football players at high risk for ACL injury using a four-test battery and assess possible factors affecting classification.
Does a four-test battery accurately classify professional and semi-professional football players as high-risk for ACL injury?
Does a four-test battery accurately classify professional and semi-professional football players as high-risk for ACL injury?
A four-test battery including LESS and strength/hop asymmetry accurately classified 78% of football players for ACL injury risk, with high sensitivity.
May inform pre-season ACL screening in footballers; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
This study aimed to identify football players at high risk (HR) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury via a four-test battery and assess possible factors affecting classification. Ninety-one professional and semi-professional male athletes participated in a field-based pre-season screening. The cut-off points of the test battery were 10% acknowledged inter-limb asymmetry limit for quadriceps and hamstring isometric strength and single-leg triple hop for distance, in addition to the upper limit of 6 errors in the landing error scoring system (LESS). Additional assessment of hip adductors and core stability completed the global functional profile of the players. Sixty-one players were identified as HR and thirty as low-risk (LR) for ACL injury. Discriminant analysis showed that the proposed test battery classified accurately 78.0% of them, with 91.8 sensitivity and 61.9% specificity. Only four misclassified players in the LR group were at risk of inadequate treatment. All participants were considered healthy, and history of a previously rehabilitated injury did not interfere with the results. LESS seems to be the best predictor for injury-risk grouping. Prone bridge time was also a whole-body variable discriminating between groups. The proposed test battery provides a promising option for field-based pre-season ACL risk assessment of football players and needs to be studied prospectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsarbou et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: