Trease, Larissa; Foley, Geraldine; Kemp, Joanne L; Hancock, Mark J; Wilson, Fiona; Makdissi, Michael; Morrison, Jess; Mosler, Andrea B
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2025-110491pmid: 41500789
Bramah, Christopher; Rhodes, Samantha; Clarke-Cornwell, Alexandra; Dos’Santos, Thomas
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2024-108600pmid: 40122585
ObjectiveTo investigate the association between sprint running biomechanics and sprint-related hamstring strain injury (HSI) in elite male football players.MethodsThis prospective cohort study recruited 126 professional male football players from eight clubs in the English football league, who were followed across a 6-month period. Maximal velocity sprint running videos (240 fps) were collected from five teams during preseason (June to August) and three teams during the in-season period (October to March) and subsequently assessed using the Sprint Mechanics Assessment Score (S-MAS) by a single, blinded assessor. Sprint-related HSI within the previous 12 months and any new MRI-confirmed sprint-related HSI were reported by club medical staff. Incidence rate ratios were calculated using a Poisson regression model to determine the association between S-MAS and new sprint-related HSIs.ResultsThere were 23 players with a previous sprint-related HSI and 17 new HSIs during the follow-up period, with 14 sprint-related injuries. S-MAS values were significantly greater among players with a previous HSI (median difference (MD): 1, p=0.007, 95% CI: 0 to 3) and those sustaining a new sprint-related HSI (MD: 2, p=0.006, 95% CI: 1 to 3) compared with uninjured players. Adjusting for age and previous injury found a significant association between the S-MAS and prospective sprint-related HSIs, with an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 1.33 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.76) for each one-point increase in S-MAS.ConclusionsThis is the first study to identify an association between sprint running kinematics and prospective sprint-related HSI in elite male football players. Sprint running mechanics assessed using the S-MAS were associated with both past and future HSIs, with a 33% increase in the risk of a new HSI with every one-point increase in S-MAS. Given the association to injury, evaluating sprint mechanics within rehabilitation and injury prevention may be warranted.
Jandacka, Daniel; Skypala, Jiri; Plesek, Jan; Urbaczka, Jan; Golian, Milos; Burda, Michal; Šustek, Jan; Zahradnik, David; Elavsky, Steriani; Jandackova, Vera Kristyna; Selbie, Scott; Silvernail, Julia Freedman; Hamill, Joseph
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2025-110260pmid: 41672607
ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether lower limb biomechanics in runners and non-runners are risk factors for the onset of Achilles tendinopathy, and to assess the contributions of age, sex, running distance and injury history to the onset of Achilles tendinopathy.MethodsThis prospective cohort study used quota sampling stratified by age, sex, region and physical activity status (runner, non-runner). Baseline assessments included questionnaires on running history and Achilles tendinopathy symptoms, running biomechanics, MRI and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Participants were followed for 1 year using a Fitbit device and a custom mobile application for weekly injury reporting and orthopaedic diagnoses. Binary logistic regression identified risk factors (OR, 95% CI). Primary biomechanical variables included ankle, knee and hip kinematics and kinetics during the stance phase of running. The main outcome was a medically confirmed diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy within 1 year.ResultsOur study included 911 adults (mean age 37.7±12.5 years; 429 (47%) females; 528 (58%) runners) followed for 1 year. A higher peak ankle inversion moment (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61) during the stance phase decreased the odds of developing Achilles tendinopathy, while a lower peak ankle external rotation angle (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.03) and greater running distance (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.22) increased the odds of onset. The findings were consistent across the full cohort and runners.ConclusionWe identified a lower peak ankle inversion moment, a lower peak ankle external rotation angle and a greater running volume as significant predictors of the onset of Achilles tendinopathy. Targeting biomechanical factors and running volume may help prevent Achilles tendinopathy.
Mendes Sieczkowska, Sofia; Caruso Mazzolani, Bruna; Reis Coimbra, Danilo; Longobardi, Igor; Rossilho Casale, Andresa; da Hora, José Davi Fajardo Villela Martins Pompílio; Roschel, Hamilton; Gualano, Bruno
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2025-110239pmid:
Finnern, Luca Sophie; Wilke, Jan; Willwacher, Steffen; Pasanen, Kati; Hollander, Karsten; Dalos, Dimitris; Welsch, Goetz H; Krosshaug, Tron; Edouard, Pascal; Gronwald, Thomas; Hoenig, Tim
Showing 1 to 10 of 13 Articles
ObjectiveLow back pain (LBP) impacts the performance and quality of life of elite athletes during and beyond their career. Our aim was to explore the lived experiences of elite athletes with persistent LBP (pLBP) with a focus on understanding the biopsychosocial factors that influence their recovery.MethodsAustralian elite athletes with pLBP (>3 months) participated in semistructured interviews which focused on their pLBP experience. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis. We partnered with athletes throughout the research process, including study design and data analysis.Results17 elite national and international athletes who competed in 10 Summer Olympic sports were included (mean symptom duration 18 months and current pain of 3.5/10 (SD+/-2.1)). Four themes were generated to represent participants’ experiences: (1) the burden of pLBP, (2) validation, agency and feeling empowered to manage pain, (3) perceived barriers and coping strategies in recovery and (4) culture and interpersonal relationships for managing persisting low back pain.ConclusionsElite athletes with pLBP report disruption to identity, self-confidence and perceived worth. The culture of elite sport magnifies psychosocial determinants of pain and recovery. Agency was fostered through validation of their pain experience, enhanced by education, diagnostic labelling and a culture of openness. Recovery was influenced by mental health and relationships within and beyond sport. Clinicians play a key role in facilitating athlete agency, contextualising pain and supporting psychological and social well-being.
ObjectiveTo compare body composition and physical fitness between transgender and cisgender individuals.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Embase and SportDiscus.Eligibility criteriaInclusion criteria comprised studies of transgender individuals comparing body composition or physical fitness pre-to-post gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or versus cisgender controls.Results50 studies (n=6099) were included. Transgender women had similar relative fat mass (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.29, 95% CI −0.63 to 0.05, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE): very low), relative lean mass (SMD 0.19, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.53, GRADE: low), upper-body strength (SMD 0.92, 95% CI −0.52 to 2.35, GRADE: very low), lower-body strength (SMD −0.10, 95% CI −1.07 to 0.86, GRADE: very low) and maximal oxygen consumption (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.81 to 0.25, GRADE: very low) in comparison to cisgender women. Transgender men exhibited higher relative fat mass (SMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.53, GRADE: moderate), lower relative lean mass (SMD −6.42, 95% CI −12.26 to −0.58, GRADE: moderate) and lower upper-body strength (SMD −1.20, 95% CI −1.96 to −0.45, GRADE: moderate) than cisgender men. In transgender women, GAHT was associated with increased fat mass and reduced lean mass and upper-body strength over 1–3 years. Transgender men demonstrated reduced fat mass and increased lean mass and strength following GAHT.ConclusionWhile transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42024562210.
ObjectivesTo explore the injury-inciting situational characteristics of indirect and non-contact muscle injuries in sports, commonly referred to as muscle strains; and to investigate differences and similarities of injury patterns across muscle groups.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies investigating injury-inciting situational characteristics (among others, injury contact mechanisms, joint positions, movement directions) of indirect and non-contact muscle injuries in sports through video recordings.ResultsTwenty-one studies reporting the injury-inciting situational characteristics of 728 indirect and non-contact muscle injuries were included. Non-contact mechanisms were more common (74%) than indirect contact mechanisms (26%). Most injuries were either running-related or occurred during sport-specific manoeuvres involving muscle-tendon unit length changes under active muscle contraction. For hamstring injuries, the most frequently reported injury kinematics comprised a knee joint position close to extension (underlying movement direction: flexion to extension) and a flexed hip joint position (underlying movement direction: variable). For adductor injuries, injury kinematics were characterised by rapid muscle lengthening due to hip extension, abduction and external rotation. For rectus femoris injuries, the observed injury kinematic comprised a flexing hip joint movement and extending knee joint movement. For calf injuries, the typical injury pattern comprised an ankle dorsiflexion movement with the knee being close to extension and the ankle in >10° dorsiflexion at the assumed injury time.ConclusionThis systematic review found distinct, identifiable injury patterns for indirect and non-contact muscle injuries. While similar situational characteristics were identified across injuries, some patterns were more specific to particular injury locations and sports.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42023472252.