The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Incidence, Risk, and Prevention of Hamstring Muscle Injuries in Professional Rugby Union
Abstract
Background: The incidence of hamstring muscle injuries in professional rugby union is high, but evidence-based information on risk factors and injury-prevention strategies in this sport is limited. Purpose: To define the incidence, severity, and risk factors associated with hamstring muscle injuries in professional rugby union and to determine whether the use of hamstring strengthening and stretching exercises reduces the incidence and severity of these injuries. Study Design: Cohort study (prevention); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Team clinicians reported all hamstring muscle injuries on a weekly basis and provided details of the location, diagnosis, severity, and mechanism of each injury; loss of time from training and match play was used as the definition of an injury. Players’ match and training exposures were recorded on a weekly basis. Results: The incidence of hamstring muscle injuries was 0.27 per 1000 player training hours and 5.6 per 1000 player match hours. Injuries, on average, resulted in 17 days of lost time, with recurrent injuries (23%) significantly more severe (25 days lost) than new injuries (14 days lost). Second-row forwards sustained the fewest (2.4 injuries/1000 player hours) and the least severe (7 days lost) match injuries. Running activities accounted for 68% of hamstring muscle injuries, but injuries resulting from kicking were the most severe (36 days lost). Players undertaking Nordic hamstring exercises in addition to conventional stretching and strengthening exercises had lower incidences and severities of injury during training and competition. Conclusion: The Nordic hamstring strengthening exercise may reduce the incidence and severity of hamstring muscle injuries sustained during training and competition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ardern, C. L., Glasgow, P., Schneiders, A., Witvrouw, E., Clarsen, B., Cools, A., Gojanovic, B., Griffin, S., Khan, K. M., Moksnes, H., et al. (2016) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278 · Cited by 985
Vriend, I., Gouttebarge, V., Finch, C. F., van Mechelen, W., & Verhagen, E. A. L. M. (2017) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0718-y · Cited by 108
Balshaw, T. G., Massey, G. J., Maden-Wilkinson, T. M., Morales-Artacho, A. J., McKeown, A., Appleby, C. L., & Folland, J. P. (2017) · European Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1007/s00421-017-3560-x · Cited by 109
Neural adaptations after 4 years vs 12 weeks of resistance training vs untrained
Balshaw, T. G., Massey, G. J., Maden‐Wilkinson, T. M., Lanza, M. B., & Folland, J. P. (2019) · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports · doi:10.1111/sms.13331 · Cited by 70
Gérard, R., Gojon, L., Decleve, P., & Van Cant, J. (2020) · Journal of Athletic Training · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-194-19 · Cited by 64
Medeiros, D. M., Marchiori, C., & Baroni, B. M. (2021) · Journal of Sport Rehabilitation · doi:10.1123/jsr.2019-0388 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Brooks, J. H. M., Fuller, C. W., Kemp, S. P. T., & Reddin, D. B.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1297-1306
- ISSN
- 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3365
- OpenAlex
- W2090402761
- Cited by
- 650
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.