Background and objective: This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on structured strength, power, plyometric and change-of-direction training programmes applied during the late, advanced or return-to-sport phase of rehabilitation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in athletes from team invasion/opposition sports, and their effects on strength, power, functional performance, movement quality, return-to-sport readiness, return to sport, reinjury and psychological readiness. Eligibility: Athletes aged ≥16 years (or mean age ≥16) after primary ACLR, including concomitant meniscal or cartilage injury, from team invasion/opposition sports (football, futsal, handball, basketball, rugby, American, Australian and Gaelic football, hurling/camogie, field and ice hockey, lacrosse, netball, ultimate), or mixed samples with ≥75% from these sports or an extractable subgroup. Interventions: structured maximal/submaximal, eccentric, isometric, explosive/power, plyometric or acceleration/deceleration/change-of-direction/agility training in the late phase. Designs: randomised and non-randomised trials, quasi-experimental and pre-post intervention studies, and case series (n ≥5), published as peer-reviewed full texts in English or Spanish. Search: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost) were searched from inception to 24 September 2026 without language, date or document-type limits (full strategies in the attached file). 5,969 records were retrieved; 3,034 remained after deduplication and 2,965 after a second deduplication in Rayyan. Methods: One reviewer will screen all 2,965 titles/abstracts and the full texts against the eligibility criteria, followed by data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment and narrative synthesis (meta-analysis if feasible). Reporting will follow PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S. Status at registration (1 October 2026): Searches completed and deduplicated. Eligibility criteria were finalised on 29 September 2026. Title/abstract screening has not started. An AI tool was used to produce a preliminary classification of records for prioritisation only; all screening decisions will be made by the reviewer. Deviations from this protocol will be reported with date and rationale.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jose Ignacio Gómez Gutiérrez (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: