The Relationship Between Acute: Chronic Workload Ratios and Injury Risk in Sports: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.3 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2020-02-24 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAJSM.S231405
Danny Maupin, Ben Schram, Elisa Canetti, Robin Orr
{"title":"The Relationship Between Acute: Chronic Workload Ratios and Injury Risk in Sports: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Danny Maupin, Ben Schram, Elisa Canetti, Robin Orr","doi":"10.2147/OAJSM.S231405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Low injury rates have previously been correlated with sporting team success, highlighting the importance of injury prevention programs. Recent methods, such as acute:chronic workload ratios (ACWR) have been developed in an attempt to predict and manage injury risk; however, the relation between these methods and injury risk is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesize the key findings of studies that have investigated the relationship between ACWR and injury risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Included studies were critically appraised using the Downs and Black checklist, and a level of evidence was determined. Relevant data were extracted, tabulated, and synthesized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven studies were included for review and ranged in percentage quality scores from 48.2% to 64.3%. Almost perfect interrater agreement (κ = 0.885) existed between raters. This review found a high variability between studies with different variables studied (total distance versus high speed running), as well as differences between ratios analyzed (1.50-1.80 versus ≥1.50), and reference groups (a reference group of 0.80-1.20 versus ≤0.85).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Considering the high variability, it appears that utilizing ACWR for external (eg, total distance) and internal (eg, heart rate) loads may be related to injury risk. Calculating ACWR using exponentially weighted moving averages may potentially result in a more sensitive measure. There also appears to be a trend towards the ratios of 0.80-1.30 demonstrating the lowest risk of injury. However, there may be issues with the ACWR method that must be addressed before it is confidently used to mitigate injury risk. Utilizing standardized approaches will allow for more objective conclusions to be drawn across multiple populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51644,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"11 ","pages":"51-75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/98/df/oajsm-11-51.PMC7047972.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJSM.S231405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Low injury rates have previously been correlated with sporting team success, highlighting the importance of injury prevention programs. Recent methods, such as acute:chronic workload ratios (ACWR) have been developed in an attempt to predict and manage injury risk; however, the relation between these methods and injury risk is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesize the key findings of studies that have investigated the relationship between ACWR and injury risk.

Methods: Included studies were critically appraised using the Downs and Black checklist, and a level of evidence was determined. Relevant data were extracted, tabulated, and synthesized.

Results: Twenty-seven studies were included for review and ranged in percentage quality scores from 48.2% to 64.3%. Almost perfect interrater agreement (κ = 0.885) existed between raters. This review found a high variability between studies with different variables studied (total distance versus high speed running), as well as differences between ratios analyzed (1.50-1.80 versus ≥1.50), and reference groups (a reference group of 0.80-1.20 versus ≤0.85).

Conclusion: Considering the high variability, it appears that utilizing ACWR for external (eg, total distance) and internal (eg, heart rate) loads may be related to injury risk. Calculating ACWR using exponentially weighted moving averages may potentially result in a more sensitive measure. There also appears to be a trend towards the ratios of 0.80-1.30 demonstrating the lowest risk of injury. However, there may be issues with the ACWR method that must be addressed before it is confidently used to mitigate injury risk. Utilizing standardized approaches will allow for more objective conclusions to be drawn across multiple populations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

急性、慢性工作量比率与运动损伤风险之间的关系运动中急性:慢性工作量比率与受伤风险之间的关系:系统回顾
目的:以前,低受伤率与运动队的成功息息相关,这凸显了预防受伤计划的重要性。最近开发了一些方法,如急性:慢性工作量比(ACWR),试图预测和管理受伤风险;然而,这些方法与受伤风险之间的关系尚不清楚。本系统性综述的目的是确定并综合 ACWR 与受伤风险之间关系的主要研究结果:方法:采用唐斯和布莱克核对表对纳入的研究进行严格评估,并确定证据等级。对相关数据进行提取、制表和综合:纳入审查的研究有 27 项,质量得分百分比从 48.2% 到 64.3% 不等。评分者之间几乎完全一致(κ = 0.885)。本综述发现,不同变量(总距离与高速跑)的研究之间存在很大差异,分析比率(1.50-1.80 与≥1.50)和参照组(参照组为 0.80-1.20 与≤0.85)之间也存在差异:考虑到高变异性,利用 ACWR 计算外部负荷(如总距离)和内部负荷(如心率)似乎与受伤风险有关。使用指数加权移动平均值计算 ACWR 可能会产生更灵敏的测量结果。此外,0.80-1.30 的比率似乎也是受伤风险最低的趋势。不过,在使用 ACWR 方法降低受伤风险之前,可能还需要解决一些问题。利用标准化方法可以在多个人群中得出更客观的结论。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
16 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信