Timothy G Eckard1, Darin A Padua2, Darren W Hearn2, Brett S Pexa2, Barnett S Frank2. 1. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Fetzer Hall CB #8700, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-8700, USA. eckardtg@email.unc.edu. 2. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Fetzer Hall CB #8700, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-8700, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between training load and musculoskeletal injury is a rapidly advancing area of research in need of an updated systematic review. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the evidence for the relationship between training load and musculoskeletal injury risk in athlete, military, and first responder (i.e. law enforcement, firefighting, rescue service) populations. METHODS: The CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SportDISCUS, and SCOPUS databases were searched using a comprehensive strategy. Studies published prior to July 2017 were included if they prospectively examined the relationship between training load and injury risk. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. A narrative synthesis of findings was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 2047 articles were examined for potential inclusion. Forty-six met the inclusion criteria and 11 known to the authors but not found in the search were added, for a total of 57 articles. Overall, 47 studies had at least partially statistically significant results, demonstrating a relationship between training load and injury risk. Included articles were rated as poor (n = 15), fair (n = 6), and good (n = 36) based on NOS score. Articles assessed as 'good' were considered level 2b evidence on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Model, and articles assessed as 'fair' or 'poor' were considered level 4 evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the existence of a relationship between training load and injury continues to be well supported in the literature and is strongest for subjective internal training load. The directionality of this relationship appears to depend on the type and timeframe of load measured.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between training load and musculoskeletal injury is a rapidly advancing area of research in need of an updated systematic review. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the evidence for the relationship between training load and musculoskeletal injury risk in athlete, military, and first responder (i.e. law enforcement, firefighting, rescue service) populations. METHODS: The CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SportDISCUS, and SCOPUS databases were searched using a comprehensive strategy. Studies published prior to July 2017 were included if they prospectively examined the relationship between training load and injury risk. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. A narrative synthesis of findings was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 2047 articles were examined for potential inclusion. Forty-six met the inclusion criteria and 11 known to the authors but not found in the search were added, for a total of 57 articles. Overall, 47 studies had at least partially statistically significant results, demonstrating a relationship between training load and injury risk. Included articles were rated as poor (n = 15), fair (n = 6), and good (n = 36) based on NOS score. Articles assessed as 'good' were considered level 2b evidence on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Model, and articles assessed as 'fair' or 'poor' were considered level 4 evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the existence of a relationship between training load and injury continues to be well supported in the literature and is strongest for subjective internal training load. The directionality of this relationship appears to depend on the type and timeframe of load measured.
Authors: Zachary L Crang; Grant Duthie; Michael H Cole; Jonathon Weakley; Adam Hewitt; Rich D Johnston Journal: Sports Med Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Neeru Jayanthi; Stacey Schley; Sean P Cumming; Gregory D Myer; Heather Saffel; Tim Hartwig; Tim J Gabbett Journal: Sports Health Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Sarah K Eustace; Alexandra N Murphy; Daire J Hurley; Ahmed H Alsayegh Abul; Eoin Kavanagh Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Stephen W West; Sean Williams; Simon P T Kemp; Robin Eager; Matthew J Cross; Keith A Stokes Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Sebastian Hacker; Thomas Reichel; Anne Hecksteden; Christopher Weyh; Kristina Gebhardt; Mark Pfeiffer; Alexander Ferrauti; Michael Kellmann; Tim Meyer; Karsten Krüger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrew R Jagim; Jason Murphy; Alexis Q Schaefer; Andrew T Askow; Joel A Luedke; Jacob L Erickson; Margaret T Jones Journal: Sports (Basel) Date: 2020-06-12