The Dose–Response Relationship of an Exercise‐Based Injury Prevention Program: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial on Athletics (Track‐and‐Field) Athletes Over a 39‐Week Follow‐Up
Abstract
Despite exercise‐based injury prevention programs (EIPPs) being widely researched and used, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to show their protective effect on injury risk. This is potentially due to underappreciating the EIPP dose–response relationship, by not controlling the analysis for the injuries sustained during the early EIPP implementation period, before the EIPP becomes efficacious. To determine the dose–response relationship of EIPP by controlling for the effects of injuries sustained before it became efficacious. We conducted a secondary analysis of an RCT analyzing the EIPP efficacy in athletics over a 39‐week follow‐up on 840 athletes, by including only those with 100% response rate. We controlled the statistical analyses for a range of lengths of early EIPP implementation period by either excluding the athletes with early injuries (i.e., exclusion approach) or adjusting for the early injuries' effects (i.e., inclusion approach). We estimated the EIPP's dose–response relationship by measuring the EIPP's effect at each length of the controlled period. When we considered no early controlled period, the EIPP showed no effect (OR = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.67–1.09]; p = 0.209). However, both exclusion and inclusion approaches showed that the EIPP effect increased significantly after 5–6 weeks of controlled period. This relationship plateaued at 7–12 weeks of controlled period, peaking at 10 weeks with the exclusion approach (OR = 0.28 [95% CI:…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
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.