Risk Factors for Lower Limb Injury in Female Team Field and Court Sports: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Best Evidence Synthesis

Abstract

Background: Identifying risk factors for lower limb injury is an important step in developing injury risk reduction training and testing for player monitoring. Female athletes are distinct from male athletes, warranting separate investigation into risk factors.Objective: To systematically review the literature and synthesise the evidence for intrinsic risk factors for lower limb injury in female team field and court sports.Method: Five online databases were searched from inception to April 2020. To be eligible for inclusion, studies were required to be a prospective study presenting intrinsic risk factors for lower limb injury in female team field or court sport athletes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality of Prognosis Studies tool. Results: Sixty-nine studies, capturing 2902 lower limb injuries in 14,492 female athletes, and analysing 80 distinct factors met the inclusion criteria. Risk factors for any lower limb injury included greater body mass (standardised mean difference [SMD]=0.24, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]=0.18-0.29), greater body mass index (BMI) (SMD=0.22, 95%CI=0.05-040), older age (SMD=0.20, 95%CI=0.09-0.31), greater star excursion balance test (SEBT)anterior reach distance (SMD=0.18, 95%CI=0.12-0.24), and smaller single-leg hop distance (SMD=-0.09, 95%CI=-0.12--0.06). Lower knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) increased the risk of knee injury. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk factors included prior ACL injury (odds ratio [OR]=3.94, 95%CI=2.07-7.50), greater doubleleg postural sway (SMD=0.58, 95%CI=0.02-1.15), and greater body mass (SMD=0.25, 95%CI=0.12-0.39). Ankle injury risk factors included smaller SEBT anterior reach distance (SMD=-0.13, 95%CI=-0.14--0.13), greater single-leg hop distance asymmetry (OR=3.67, 95%CI=1.42-9.45), and slower agility course time (OR=0.20, 95%CI=0.05-0.88). Remaining factors were not associated with injury or had conflicting evidence. Key points• Prior injury, older age, greater body mass, greater body mass index, and lower KOOS are risk factors for lower limb injury in female athletes.• Performance tests associated with injury include star excursion balance test anterior reach, single-leg hop distance and asymmetry, double-leg postural sway, and agility course time.• The majority of test/factors commonly proposed to be associated with injury have limited evidence, predominantly due to conflicting results between studies.

How injury prevention programs are being structured and implemented worldwide: An international survey of sports physical therapists

“…Despite the participant's perception of a preventive effect, research is not consistent about differences in IPPs effectiveness based on athlete gender (Asker et al, 2018;Smyth et al, 2019). It worth to mention that, historically, IPP was developed and studied first in young female athletes (Collings et al, 2021).…”

Association between SARS‐COV‐2 infection and muscle strain injury occurrence in elite male football players: a prospective study of 29 weeks including three teams from the Belgian professional football league

“…Possible confounding factors (like age, body mass index (BMI) and previous injury) were assessed. Since these variables might be associated with injury occurrence,18 19 they were included in the model provided they were statistically significant (p<0.05). Because of the collinearity between SARS-CoV-2 infection status, days absent due to the infection and severity of the symptoms, only the analysis with the SARS-CoV-2 infection status variable was reported.…”

Effects of posture and lower limb muscle strength on the results of the Star Excursion Balance Test

“…Therefore, there may be a need for population-specific cut-off points to be developed to screen for injury risk in athletes 6) . For any lower limb injury, risk factors included greater SEBT anterior reach distance, Ankle injury risk factors included smaller SEBT anterior reach distance 17) . In this study, related factors of muscle strength and posture differed between the dominant and nondominant legs, even in the same reach direction.…”