Key result
Higher acute:chronic work load ratios (>1.26 vs <0.78) were associated with increased risk of non-contact injury (OR 3.5; 90% CI 1.7-7.4), but demonstrated poor predictive ability (AUC ≤0.60).
Why the study?
Does the acute:chronic work load ratio predict non-contact injury in elite football players?
Cohort (n=34)
Does the acute:chronic work load ratio predict non-contact injury in elite football players?
Odds Ratio: 3.5 (95% CI 1.7–7.4)
Although acute:chronic workload ratios are associated with increased injury risk in elite footballers, they have poor predictive ability for non-contact injuries.
Should not yet guide injury prevention in football; leaves open prospective validation of workload monitoring.
Purpose: To examine association and prediction of load-based markers (rate of perceived exertion) with non-contact injuries.Materials and methods: Thirty-four elite Italian football players (age 26 ± 5 y, height 182 ± 5 cm, body mass 78 ± 4 kg) participated in a 3-seasons prospective study. Markers examined were: RPE, exposure, weekly load, week-to-week load change, cumulative 2, 3, 4 WL, acute:chronic 1:2 (acute:chronic2), 1:3 (acute:chronic3) and 1:4 (acute:chronic4) WL ratios. After checking multicollinearity between markers, a Generalized Estimating Equation analysis was used to examine association with a non-contact injury in the subsequent week. The associated markers were split into four groups based on 15th, 50th, 85th percentile to compare injury risk (IR) in different zones. Prediction was examined with receiver operating characteristic curve, area under the curve (AUC) and Youden index.Results: IR increased when acute:chronic2 of 1.00–1.20, >1.20 were compared to <0.81 (odds ratio (OR), 90% confidence interval (CI): 1.6, 0.79–3.29; 2.2, 1.03–4.74). IR increased when comparing acute:chronic3 of 1.01–1.23, >1.23 vs. <0.80 (OR, 90% CI: 1.9, 0.9–3.8; 2.5, 1.2–5.4). IR increased when comparing acute:chronic4 of 0.78–1.02, 1.02–1.26, >1.26 vs. <0.78 (OR, 90% CI: 2.4, 1.4–3.9; 3.3, 1.6–6.6; 3.5, 1.7–7.4). The AUC ≤0.60 for all markers and Youden Index (close to 0) showed poor prediction.Conclusion: Acute:chronic markers showed association however with poor prediction ability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fanchini et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Non-contact injuries (n=34). Acute:chronic work load ratio vs. Lower acute:chronic work load ratio zones was evaluated on Non-contact injury in the subsequent week (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.7-7.4). Higher acute:chronic work load ratios (>1.26 vs <0.78) were associated with increased risk of non-contact injury (OR 3.5; 90% CI 1.7-7.4), but demonstrated poor predictive ability (AUC ≤0.60).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: