Mobility, proprioception, strength and FMS as predictors of injury in professional footballers.
| Autor: | Yeung J; Cardiff University , Cardiff , UK., Cleves A; CEDAR, Cardiff Medicentre, University Hospital of Wales , Cardiff , UK., Griffiths H; Cardiff City Football Club , Cardiff , UK., Nokes L; Cardiff University , Cardiff , UK. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | BMJ open sport & exercise medicine [BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med] 2016 Aug 15; Vol. 2 (1), pp. e000134. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Aug 15 (Print Publication: 2016). |
| DOI: | 10.1136/bmjsem-2016-000134 |
| Abstrakt: | Background: The premise of this study was to investigate if anthropometric variables such as mobility, proprioception, strength and modified Functional Movement Screen (mFMS) could be used as primary indicators of injury risk in an English Championship division football team. This study focused on moderate injuries occurring in the lower extremities, during the 2014/2015 competitive season. Methods: To differentiate between minor, moderate and severe injuries, this study classified moderate injuries as an injury with an average injury severity of 2-28 days. This study is composed of 4 individual investigations. Each variable was assessed against 2 groups: injured (n=6) and non-injured (n=10). The 2 groups were compiled from the first team, with the criteria that each participant of this study required: full preseason assessment and injury history for the time period, 1 July 2014 to 19 March 2015. A Mann-Whitney U test (0.05% significance) was applied to statistically analyse if each variable showed any variation across the 2 groups. Effect size was estimated with Cliff's d. Results: Strength asymmetry displayed significant difference (p=0.007), mobility, proprioception and mFMS did not (p=0.263, p=0.792 and p=0.181, respectively). Mean scores for mobility, proprioception, strength asymmetry and mFMS for injured versus non-injured players (effect size) were: 40.00 vs 38.00 (0.37), 10.33 vs 10.20 (0.10), 61.13 vs 30.40 (0.80) and 7.33 vs 8.90 (-0.4), respectively. Conclusions: This study found no relationship between mobility/proprioception and injury risk; however, strength asymmetry was statistically significant in predicting injury and mFMS exhibited enough positive difference for recommendation of further investigation. |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|