Suppr超能文献

基于运动的损伤预防计划的剂量反应关系:一项针对田径运动员(径赛)的 39 周随访的随机对照试验的二次分析。

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.

机构信息

Université Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne, Lyon 1, Université Savoie Mont-Blanc, Inter-University Laboratory of Human Movement Biology (EA 7424), Saint-Etienne, France.

Mines Saint-Etienne, Univ Lyon, Univ Jean Monnet, INSERM, U 1059 Sainbiose, Centre CIS, Saint-Etienne, France.

出版信息

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2024 Sep;34(9):e14720. doi: 10.1111/sms.14720.

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: 0.16-0.48]; p < 0.001), and 7 weeks with the inclusion approach (OR = 0.37 [95% CI: 0.25-0.55]; p < 0.001). Acknowledging the dose-response relationship of EIPPs could help researchers to design and analyze RCTs and practitioners to plan EIPP implementation timely. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03307434.

摘要

尽管基于运动的损伤预防计划 (EIPP) 已经得到广泛研究和应用,但几项随机对照试验 (RCT) 未能显示其对损伤风险的保护作用。这可能是由于没有意识到 EIPP 的剂量-反应关系,即在 EIPP 变得有效之前,没有控制分析在早期 EIPP 实施期间发生的损伤。通过控制在变得有效之前发生的损伤的影响来确定 EIPP 的剂量-反应关系。我们对一项 RCT 进行了二次分析,该 RCT 在 840 名运动员的 39 周随访中分析了运动损伤预防计划的疗效,仅包括那些具有 100%反应率的运动员。我们通过排除早期受伤的运动员(即排除方法)或调整早期受伤的影响(即纳入方法)来控制不同长度的早期 EIPP 实施期的统计分析。我们通过测量每个控制期长度的 EIPP 效果来估计 EIPP 的剂量-反应关系。当我们考虑没有早期控制期时,EIPP 没有效果(OR=0.85[95%CI:0.67-1.09];p=0.209)。然而,排除和纳入方法都表明,EIPP 效应在 5-6 周的控制期后显著增加。这种关系在 7-12 周的控制期达到平台期,在 10 周的排除法中达到峰值(OR=0.28[95%CI:0.16-0.48];p<0.001),在 7 周的纳入法中达到峰值(OR=0.37[95%CI:0.25-0.55];p<0.001)。承认 EIPP 的剂量-反应关系可以帮助研究人员设计和分析 RCT,帮助实践者及时规划 EIPP 的实施。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT03307434。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验