Evidence Hub

Preventive interventions on ACL injury reduction based on the landing error scoring system evaluation tool: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Zhu J, Yang X, Li T, Xing W, Zhang Z, Chen Z, Zhu W

BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025

1,356 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injuries pose a significant risk in sports, often leading to long rehabilitation and re-injury. The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) has been proposed as a means of assessing the risk of potential ACL damage. This study employed Network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of various preventive interventions in reducing ACL injury risk among athletes, utilizing LESS evaluation tool to identify the most effective strategies. METHODS: A comprehensive search for related publications in English in databases, such as WOS, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus from the establishment of the databases to February 2025. Relevant content in the literature that passed the screening criteria was extracted, including the sample, first author, intervention, intervention duration, and outcome. We compared the Mean Difference (MD) values across studies and used network meta-analysis based on Bayesian modelling. RESULTS: A Network meta-analysis of 20 studies (N = 1,356) was conducted. After comparison, assessing the impact of eight training interventions on the LESS scores. Dynamic Taping (MD, -1.87, 95% CrI, -3.29 to -0.46), Neuromuscular Training (MD, -1.04, 95% CrI, -2.01 to -0.10), and Feedback Training (MD, -0.86 95% CrI, -1.54 to -0.20) were the most effective in reducing injury risk. The SUCRA rankings from highest to lowest are as follows: Dynamic Taping (79.0), Neuromuscular Training (53.2), and Feedback Training (43.0).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,356 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free