Table 3

Overview and summary of included studies

ReferenceNDesignPreventive measureActivityFollow-upOutcome
Shoe type and/or shoe design
Barrett et al17569RCTLow- and high-top shoesBasketball1 season

  • No significant differences between groups

Curtis et al24230Prospective cohortCushioned column versus non-cushioned columnBasketball1 season

  • No significant differences between groups

Tape
Garrick and Requa182544RCTProphylactic taping combined with high- and low-top shoesBasketball2 years

  • Lower-ankle sprain incidence density in taped group. 14.7 versus 32.8

  • Lower fresh ankle-sprain incidence density in taped group. 10.9 versus 17.9

  • Lower recurrent ankle-sprain incidence density in taped group. 22.1 versus 140.0

  • High-top shoes were also associated with a decreased incidence of ankle sprains

Moiler et al34125CTFibular repositioning tapeBasketballUnknown

  • Significantly fewer ankle sprains in the taped condition. 2 versus 9; OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.93

  • All injuries occurred in previously injured athletes

Brace
Sitler et al201601RCTSemirigid ankle stabilisersBasketball3 Seasons

  • Significantly lower ankle-sprain incidence density in the braced group. 1.6 versus 5.2 sprains per 1000 h of exposure

  • No subgroup analysis was performed for recurrent ankle sprains

Surve et al21504RCTSemirigid ankle orthosisSoccer1 season

  • Significantly lower recurrent ankle sprain incidence density in braced group. 0.5 versus 1.2 sprains per 1000 h of exposure

  • No difference between groups for fresh ankle sprains

Neuromuscular/proprioceptive/balance training
Bahr et al16814Prospective (time trend analysis)Injury-prevention programmeVolleyball1 season

  • Significant reduction in ankle sprain incidence density 2 years after introduction of the preventive programme. 0.9 versus 0.5 sprains per 1000 h of exposure

  • Gradual non-significant decline in the risk of recurrent ankle sprains

Cumps et al2354CTBalance training programmeBasketball1 season
  • ▶

    ▶ Significantly lower ankle- sprain incidence density in intervention group. RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.84

  • No significant difference between groups for fresh ankle sprains

  • No significant difference between groups for recurrent ankle sprains

Emery et al25127RCTBalance training programmeDivers6 months

  • Significantly lower ankle-sprain rate in intervention group. RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.88.

  • No significant difference between groups for fresh ankle sprains

  • Significantly lower recurrent ankle sprain rate in intervention group. RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.0.

Emery et al26929RCTBalance training programmeBasketball1 year

  • No significant differences in ankle-sprain incidence density between groups

  • Only 60% of the intervention group reported to have complied with the intervention programme. No subgroup analysis was performed for recurrent ankle sprains.

Engebretsen et al27508RCTInjury-prevention programme for athletes at increased injury riskSoccer1 (pre)season

  • No significant differences in ankle-sprain incidence density between groups

  • Only 28% of the intervention group reported to have complied with the intervention programme

Holme et al2892RCTSupervised rehabilitation including postural trainingDivers1 year

  • Significant lower ankle sprain recurrence rate in intervention group. 29% versus 7%

Hupperets et al29522RCTUnsupervised home based neuromuscular training after usual care for an ankle sprainDivers1 year

  • Significant lower risk of recurrent ankle sprains in the intervention group. RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88

  • Only 23% of the intervention group fully complied with the intervention programme

ReferenceNDesignPreventive measureActivityFollow-upOutcome
McGuine and Keene30765RCTBalance training programmeSoccer and BasketballUnknown

  • Significantly lower ankle-sprain incidence density in intervention group. 1.1 versus 1.9 sprains per 1000 h of exposure.

  • No significant difference between groups for fresh ankle sprains

  • No subgroup analysis was reported for recurrent ankle sprains

Olsen et al351837RCTInjury-prevention programmeHandball1 season

  • No significant differences in ankle-sprain risk between groups

  • No subgroup analysis was performed for recurrent ankle sprains

Petersen et al36134CTBalance-board training programmeHandball1 season

  • No significant differences in ankle-sprain risk between groups

  • No subgroup analysis was performed for recurrent ankle sprains

Söderman et al37221RCTBalance-board training programmeSoccer1 season

  • No significant differences in ankle-sprain risk between groups

  • No subgroup analysis was performed for recurrent ankle sprains

Verhagen et al391127CTBalance-board training programmeVolleyball1 season

  • Significantly lower ankle-sprain incidence density in intervention group. RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9.

  • No significant difference between groups for fresh ankle sprains

  • Significantly lower recurrent ankle sprain rate in intervention group. RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8.

Combined/other comparisons
Mickel et al3283RCTSemirigid brace versus tapeAmerican football1 season

  • No significant differences in ankle-sprain incidence density between groups.

Mohammadi3380RCTBrace versus balance-board training programme versus strength training programme versus controlSoccer1 season

  • Significantly lower recurrent ankle-sprain incidence density in the balance-board training group as compared with the control group. RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.9.

  • No difference in recurrent ankle-sprain incidence density between the strength training and control group

  • No difference in recurrent ankle-sprain incidence density between the brace and control group

Rovere et al19297RetrospectiveTape versus laced bracesAmerican Football6 years

  • Significant lower ankle sprain risk in braced group. RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.85.

  • No subgroup analysis was performed for recurrent ankle sprains

Tropp et al22439RCTBrace and balance-board training programmeSoccer1 (pre)season

  • Significant lower recurrent ankle-sprain incidence density in balance board group

  • Significant lower recurrent ankle-sprain incidence density in brace group

Wedderkopp et al40163RCTBalance-board training programme versus strength training programmeHandball1 season

  • Significant lower ankle-sprain incidence density in balance board group. OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.9 to 11.7.

  • No subgroup analysis was performed for recurrent ankle sprains

  • CT, controlled trial; RCT, randomised controlled trial.