Hamstring injury prevention: effect and grading the quality of evidence
| Outcomes | RR (95% CI) | Effect size | |||
| Large | Medium | Small | Trivial | ||
| Risk of injury | |||||
| Meta-analyses | |||||
| Interventions including the Nordic hamstring exercise versus usual care*; n=5362, male/female football53 | 0.55 (0.34 to 0.89); I2=67.0% | Moderate quality of evidence | |||
| Mixed eccentric hamstring training versus usual care based*; n=1229, male football52 | 0.59 (0.24 to 1.44); I2=69.6% | Low quality of evidence | |||
| FIFA 11+ programme versus usual care;* n=3417, male/female football54 | 0.39 (0.24 to 0.64); I2=0.0% | Moderate quality of evidence | |||
| Nordic hamstring exercise protocol versus usual care;* n=1521, male football56 57 | 0.35 (0.22 to 0.54); I2=0.0% | High quality of evidence | |||
| Individual studies | |||||
| Bounding exercise programme versus usual care; n=400, male football63 | 0.89 (0.55 to 1.44) | Moderate quality of evidence | |||
| FIFA 11+ programme performed pre-football and post-football versus FIFA 11+ performed pre-football; n=280, male football62 | 0.21 (0.05 to 0.95) | Very low quality of evidence | |||
| Modified FIFA 11+ with rescheduling of Part 2 versus standard FIFA 11+; n=806, male football64 | 0.86 (0.59 to 1.25) | Moderate quality of evidence | |||
| Balance board training versus usual care; n=140, female football65 | 0.18 (0.02 to 1.42) | Very low quality of evidence | |||
*Based on pooled data from meta-analysis. RR (risk ratio); I2 (heterogeneity in study results); The preventive effect is assessed as RR assessed as trivial (RR >0.78), small (0.78≥ RR >0.61), medium (0.61≥ RR >0.47) and large (RR ≤0.47).47