Key result
Recent muscle injury classification and grading systems lack consensus on a comprehensive, evidence-based approach, with few features accurately determining prognosis.
Highlights the lack of consensus and evidence-based comprehensive systems for classifying and grading muscle injuries in sports.
Clinicians should avoid relying on current muscle injury classifications for prognosis; research leaves open development of validated, evidence-based systems.
Muscle injuries remain one of the most common injuries in sport, yet despite this, there is little consensus on how to either effectively describe or determine the prognosis of a specific muscle injury. Numerous approaches to muscle classification and grading of medicine have been applied over the last century, but over the last decade the limitations of historic approaches have been recognized. As a consequence, in the past 10 years, clinical research groups have begun to question the historic approaches and reconsider the way muscle injuries are classified and described. Using a narrative approach, this manuscript describes several of the most recent attempts to classify and grade muscle injuries and highlights the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. While each of the new classification and grading systems have strengths, there remains little consensus on a system that is both comprehensive and evidence based. Few of the currently identified features within the grading systems have relevance to accurately determining prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hamilton et al. (2017) conducted a review in Muscle injuries. Classification and grading systems was evaluated. Recent muscle injury classification and grading systems lack consensus on a comprehensive, evidence-based approach, with few features accurately determining prognosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: