CONTEXT: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are prevalent in female athletes. Specific factors have possible links to increasing a female athlete's chances of suffering an ACL injury. However, it is unclear if augmented feedback may be able to decrease possible risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of task-specific feedback on a repeated tuck-jump maneuver. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Sports-medicine biodynamics center. PATIENTS: 37 female subjects (14.7 ± 1.5 y, 160.9 ± 6.8 cm, 54.5 ± 7.2 kg). INTERVENTION: All athletes received standard off-season training consisting of strength training, plyometrics, and conditioning. They were also videotaped during each session while running on a treadmill at a standardized speed (8 miles/h) and while performing a repeated tuck-jump maneuver for 10 s. The augmented feedback group (AF) received feedback on deficiencies present in a 10-s tuck jump, while the control group (CTRL) received feedback on 10-s treadmill running. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measurements of tuck-jump deficits were scored by a blinded rater to determine the effects of group (CTRL vs AF) and time (pre- vs posttesting) on changes in measured deficits. RESULTS: A significant interaction of time by group was noted with the task-specific feedback training (P = .03). The AF group reduced deficits measured during the tuck-jump assessment by 23.6%, while the CTRL training reduced deficits by 10.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study indicate that task-specific feedback is effective for reducing biomechanical risk factors associated with ACL injury. The data also indicate that specific components of the tuck-jump assessment are potentially more modifiable than others.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are prevalent in female athletes. Specific factors have possible links to increasing a female athlete's chances of suffering an ACL injury. However, it is unclear if augmented feedback may be able to decrease possible risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of task-specific feedback on a repeated tuck-jump maneuver. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Sports-medicine biodynamics center. PATIENTS: 37 female subjects (14.7 ± 1.5 y, 160.9 ± 6.8 cm, 54.5 ± 7.2 kg). INTERVENTION: All athletes received standard off-season training consisting of strength training, plyometrics, and conditioning. They were also videotaped during each session while running on a treadmill at a standardized speed (8 miles/h) and while performing a repeated tuck-jump maneuver for 10 s. The augmented feedback group (AF) received feedback on deficiencies present in a 10-s tuck jump, while the control group (CTRL) received feedback on 10-s treadmill running. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measurements of tuck-jump deficits were scored by a blinded rater to determine the effects of group (CTRL vs AF) and time (pre- vs posttesting) on changes in measured deficits. RESULTS: A significant interaction of time by group was noted with the task-specific feedback training (P = .03). The AF group reduced deficits measured during the tuck-jump assessment by 23.6%, while the CTRL training reduced deficits by 10.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study indicate that task-specific feedback is effective for reducing biomechanical risk factors associated with ACL injury. The data also indicate that specific components of the tuck-jump assessment are potentially more modifiable than others.
Authors: James A Oñate; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Stephen W Marshall; Carol Giuliani; Bing Yu; William E Garrett Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-04-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Bohdanna T Zazulak; Patricia L Ponce; Stephen J Straub; Michael J Medvecky; Lori Avedisian; Timothy E Hewett Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Daniel C Herman; James A Oñate; Paul S Weinhold; Kevin M Guskiewicz; William E Garrett; Bing Yu; Darin A Padua Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Sandra J Shultz; Randy J Schmitz; Anne Benjaminse; Malcolm Collins; Kevin Ford; Anthony S Kulas Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford; Stephanie L Di Stasi; Kim D Barber Foss; Lyle J Micheli; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Adam W Kiefer; Adam M Kushner; John Groene; Christopher Williams; Michael A Riley; Gregory D Myer Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Scott Bonnette; Christopher A DiCesare; Jed A Diekfuss; Dustin R Grooms; Ryan P MacPherson; Michael A Riley; Gregory D Myer Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Azahara Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe; Alicia M Montalvo; Rhodri S Lloyd; Paul Read; Gregory D Myer Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 2.988