Back

Neuromuscular risk factors for non-contact knee injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

McGuire, B.; King, B.

2021-09-10 sports medicine
10.1101/2021.09.06.21263164 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesIdentify neuromuscular risk factors for non-contact knee injury, using a systematic review and meta-analysis, to inform the development of preventive strategies. MethodsMedline, Web of Science and SCOPUS were searched from inception until November 2020. Prospective and nested case-control studies that analysed baseline neuromuscular characteristics as potential risk factors for subsequent non-contact knee injuries were included. Two reviewers independently appraised methodological quality using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate, with standardised mean differences calculated for continuous scaled data. ResultsSeventeen studies were included, comprising baseline data from 5,584 participants and 415 non-contact knee injuries (heterogeneous incidence = 7.4%). Protocols and outcome measures differed across studies, limiting data pooling. Twenty-one neuromuscular variables were included in the meta-analysis. Three were identified as risk factors. For patellofemoral pain, among military recruits: reduced non-normalised quadriceps strength at 60{o}/s (SMD -0.66; 95% CI -0.99, -0.32); reduced quadriceps strength at 240{o}/s (normalised by body mass) (SMD -0.53; CI -0.87, -0.20). For PFP/ACL injury among female military recruits: reduced quadriceps strength at 60{o}/s (normalised by body mass) (SMD -0.50; CI -0.92, -0.08). ConclusionsQuadriceps weakness is a risk factor for PFP among military recruits, and for PFP/ACL injury among female military recruits. However, the effect sizes are small, and the generalisability of these findings is limited. The effectiveness of quadriceps strengthening interventions for preventing PFP and ACL injury merits evaluation in prospective randomised trials.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.