Table 3

Summary of Reviewed Studies including study design, level of evidence, sports, number of teams and ages

Reference (year)Study designLevel of evidenceSportsNumber of teamsAges (years)
Hewett et al (1999)29Prospective non-randomised cohort2bSoccer
Volleyball
Basketball
15 teams (control)
15 teams (intervention)
14–18 (range)
Soderman et al* (2000)30Prospective randomised control2bSoccer6 teams (control)
7 teams (intervention)
C:20.4±5.4
I:20.4±4.6
(mean)
Heidt et al (2000)31Prospective randomised control1bSoccer258 individuals (control)
42 individuals (intervention)
14–18
(range)
Myklebust et al† (2003)28Prospective non-randomised crossover2bHandball60 teams (1st year)
58 teams (2nd year)
21–22
(mean)
Mandelbaum et al (2005)32Prospective non-randomised cohort2bSoccer207 teams (control)
97 teams (intervention)
14–18
(range)
Olsen et al (2005)33Prospective cluster randomised controlled1bHandball59 teams (control)
61 teams (intervention)
16–17
(mean)
Petersen et al (2005)35Prospective matched cohort2bHandball10 teams (control)
10 teams (intervention)
C:19.8
I:19.4
(mean)
Pfeiffer et al (2006)36Prospective non-randomised cohort2bSoccer
Volleyball
Basketball
69 teams (control)
43 teams (intervention)
14–18
(range)
Steffen et al (2008)21 49Prospective block randomised controlled1bSoccer51 teams (control)
58 teams (intervention)
15.4
(mean)
Gilchrist et al (2008)20Prospective cluster randomised controlled1bSoccer35 teams (control)
26 teams (intervention)
C:19.9
I:19.9
(mean)
Pasanen et al (2009)Prospective cluster randomised controlled1bFloorball14 teams (control)
14 teams (control)
24
(mean)
Kiani et al (2010)37Prospective cluster non-randomised cohort2bSoccer49 teams (control)
48 teams(intervention)
C:15.0
I:14.7
(mean)
LaBella et al (2011)38Prospective cluster randomised controlled1bSoccer
Basketball
53 teams (control)
53 teams(intervention)
C:16.2
I:16.2
(mean)
Walden et al (2012)39Prospective cluster randomised controlled1bSoccer109 teams(control)
121 teams(intervention)
C:14.1
I:14.0
(mean)
  • *Although the study was a randomised controlled design, the follow-up rate was low (51.2%). Therefore, the level of evidence was rated as 2b.

  • †For analysis purposes, only data from the first intervention year were used.