You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PEDro Systematic Review update
Neuromuscular training reduces the risk of lower limb injuries
  1. Steven J Kamper,
  2. Anne M Moseley
  1. Centre for Evidence-Based Physiotherapy, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Anne M Moseley, Centre for Evidence-Based Physiotherapy, The George Institute for Global Health, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, NSW 2050, Australia; pedro{at}georgeinstitute.org.au

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.081315

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    1. Hübscher M,
    2. Zech A,
    3. Pfeifer K,
    4. et al
    . Neuromuscular training for sports injury prevention: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010;42:413–21.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science

    Background

    Given the evidence that lower limb sprains, dislocations and ligament ruptures are responsible for a significant proportion of sporting injuries, measures to prevent these injuries have received considerable research attention. Exercise programs aimed at improving balance, proprioception and neuromuscular function are often recommended to athletes for this purpose.

    Aim

    To synthesise the best available evidence to assess the effectiveness of proprioceptive/neuromuscular training in preventing sports injuries.

    Searches and inclusion criteria

    Five key biomedical databases were searched for appropriate studies published up to October 2008 and the reference lists of all included articles and relevant reviews screened by hand. Eligible studies had to compare injury incidence among athletes in a group that received proprioceptive/neuromuscular training to that among athletes in a control …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.