Comparative Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Hamstring Injury Prevention in Football Players: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Binjie Hong, Xin Hong, Hao Lin, Ziyi Yang, Jun Feng
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Hamstring Injury Prevention in Football Players: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.","authors":"Binjie Hong, Xin Hong, Hao Lin, Ziyi Yang, Jun Feng","doi":"10.1186/s40798-026-01087-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hamstring strain injury is a leading time-loss injury in football, yet trials have evaluated diverse exercise-based prevention programs with limited direct head-to-head evidence. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions for preventing hamstring injuries in football players using exposure-adjusted incidence rate ratios.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a PRISMA-aligned systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in football players comparing exercise-based interventions to prevent hamstring injuries. Searches covered PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science from inception to January 5, 2026. Interventions were modeled as separate nodes (Nordic hamstring exercise [NHE], FIFA 11, FIFA 11 + , FIFA 11 + Kids, bounding exercise program [BEP], usual training). The primary effect measure was incidence rate ratio (IRR) versus usual training, with ranking by P-scores; exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted by sex-restricted male-only evidence and age group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 9,282 participants were included. The network was connected but largely star-shaped, with most evidence comparing active interventions against usual training and no direct active-active comparisons. FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence versus usual training (IRR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98; P-score = 0.84). FIFA 11 + Kids showed a favorable but imprecise estimate, whereas NHE showed a modest non-significant reduction and FIFA 11 and BEP showed no clear benefit. Male-only findings were broadly consistent with the primary analysis. Age-stratified analyses suggested that the apparent hierarchy was not fully identical across age strata, but subgroup networks were sparse and exploratory. RoB 2 judged three studies as high risk and eight as having some concerns; no trial was judged as overall low risk. Between-study heterogeneity was substantial, and treatment rankings were, therefore, interpreted cautiously.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this IRR-based network meta-analysis, FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence compared with usual training. However, certainty across the primary comparisons ranged from low to very low because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, sparse direct evidence for several nodes, reliance on indirect active-active comparisons, substantial between-study heterogeneity, and moderate-to-high risk of bias across the included studies. The treatment hierarchy should, therefore, be interpreted as a low-to-very-low-certainty, population-level summary rather than as a basis for firm recommendations. Further well-reported, age- and population-specific head-to-head trials with consistent exposure, injury-definition, adherence, and intervention-dose reporting are needed. Registration Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD420251243576).</p>","PeriodicalId":21788,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine - Open","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13578199/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine - Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-026-01087-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hamstring strain injury is a leading time-loss injury in football, yet trials have evaluated diverse exercise-based prevention programs with limited direct head-to-head evidence. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions for preventing hamstring injuries in football players using exposure-adjusted incidence rate ratios.

Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-aligned systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in football players comparing exercise-based interventions to prevent hamstring injuries. Searches covered PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science from inception to January 5, 2026. Interventions were modeled as separate nodes (Nordic hamstring exercise [NHE], FIFA 11, FIFA 11 + , FIFA 11 + Kids, bounding exercise program [BEP], usual training). The primary effect measure was incidence rate ratio (IRR) versus usual training, with ranking by P-scores; exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted by sex-restricted male-only evidence and age group.

Results: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 9,282 participants were included. The network was connected but largely star-shaped, with most evidence comparing active interventions against usual training and no direct active-active comparisons. FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence versus usual training (IRR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98; P-score = 0.84). FIFA 11 + Kids showed a favorable but imprecise estimate, whereas NHE showed a modest non-significant reduction and FIFA 11 and BEP showed no clear benefit. Male-only findings were broadly consistent with the primary analysis. Age-stratified analyses suggested that the apparent hierarchy was not fully identical across age strata, but subgroup networks were sparse and exploratory. RoB 2 judged three studies as high risk and eight as having some concerns; no trial was judged as overall low risk. Between-study heterogeneity was substantial, and treatment rankings were, therefore, interpreted cautiously.

Conclusions: In this IRR-based network meta-analysis, FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence compared with usual training. However, certainty across the primary comparisons ranged from low to very low because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, sparse direct evidence for several nodes, reliance on indirect active-active comparisons, substantial between-study heterogeneity, and moderate-to-high risk of bias across the included studies. The treatment hierarchy should, therefore, be interpreted as a low-to-very-low-certainty, population-level summary rather than as a basis for firm recommendations. Further well-reported, age- and population-specific head-to-head trials with consistent exposure, injury-definition, adherence, and intervention-dose reporting are needed. Registration Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD420251243576).

运动干预预防足球运动员腿筋损伤的比较效果:系统回顾和网络meta分析。
背景:腿筋拉伤是足球运动中主要的时间损失损伤,然而试验已经评估了各种基于运动的预防方案,但直接的头部对抗证据有限。本系统综述和网络荟萃分析旨在比较基于运动的干预措施对预防足球运动员腿筋损伤的有效性,使用暴露调整发生率比。方法:我们对足球运动员的随机对照试验进行了一项与prisma对齐的系统评价和随机效应网络荟萃分析,比较了基于运动的干预措施预防腿筋损伤。检索涵盖了PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase和Web of Science从成立到2026年1月5日。干预建模为单独的节点(北欧腿筋运动[NHE], FIFA 11, FIFA 11 +, FIFA 11 + Kids,跳跃运动项目[BEP],常规训练)。主要效果测量指标为发生率比(IRR)与常规训练的比较,并以p值排序;探索性亚组分析按性别限制的纯男性证据和年龄组进行。结果:纳入11项随机对照试验,9282名受试者。这个网络是相连的,但很大程度上是星形的,大多数证据将积极干预与常规训练进行比较,没有直接的积极-积极对比。FIFA 11 +与常规训练相比,暴露调整后与腘绳肌损伤发生率降低的相关性最为一致(IRR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98; P-score = 0.84)。《FIFA 11 + Kids》显示出有利但不精确的估计,而NHE显示出适度的非显著减少,《FIFA 11》和《BEP》没有显示出明显的好处。仅男性的研究结果与初步分析大体一致。年龄分层分析表明,不同年龄层的表观层次并不完全相同,但亚群网络是稀疏的和探索性的。RoB 2判定3项研究为高风险研究,8项研究存在一些担忧;没有试验被判定为整体低风险。研究间异质性很大,因此对治疗排名的解释要谨慎。结论:在这项基于ir的网络荟萃分析中,与常规训练相比,FIFA 11 +显示出最一致的暴露调整与腘绳肌损伤发生率降低的关联。然而,由于临床和方法学的异质性、几个节点的直接证据稀少、依赖于间接的主动-主动比较、大量的研究间异质性以及纳入研究的中高偏倚风险,主要比较的确定性范围从低到非常低。因此,治疗等级应被解释为低至极低确定性的人口水平摘要,而不是作为确定建议的基础。需要进一步进行有良好报道的、针对特定年龄和人群的头对头试验,这些试验应具有一致的暴露、损伤定义、依从性和干预剂量报告。系统评审注册PROSPERO (CRD420251243576)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sports Medicine - Open
Sports Medicine - Open SPORT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书