↓ Skip to main content

Conceptual Framework for Strengthening Exercises to Prevent Hamstring Strains

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
85 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
429 Mendeley
Title
Conceptual Framework for Strengthening Exercises to Prevent Hamstring Strains
Published in
Sports Medicine, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40279-013-0097-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenny Guex, Grégoire P. Millet

Abstract

High-speed running accounts for the majority of hamstring strains in many sports. The terminal swing phase is believed to be the most hazardous as the hamstrings are undergoing an active lengthening contraction in a long muscle length position. Prevention-based strength training mainly focuses on eccentric exercises. However, it appears crucial to integrate other parameters than the contraction type. Therefore, the aim of this study is to present a conceptual framework based on six key parameters (contraction type, load, range of motion, angular velocity, uni-/bilateral exercises, kinetic chain) for the hamstring's strength exercise for strain prevention. Based on the biomechanical parameters of sprinting, it is proposed to use high-load eccentric contractions. The movement should be performed at a slow to moderate angular velocity and focused at the knee joint, while the hip is kept in a large flexion position in order to reach a greater elongation stress of the hamstrings than in the terminal swing phase. In this way, we believe that, during sprinting, athletes would be better trained to brake the knee extension effectively in the whole range of motion without overstretch of the hamstrings. Finally, based on its functional application, unilateral open kinetic chain should be preferred.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 429 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 418 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 90 21%
Student > Master 72 17%
Other 38 9%
Student > Postgraduate 30 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 7%
Other 74 17%
Unknown 95 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 172 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 71 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Other 18 4%
Unknown 107 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2022.
All research outputs
#672,023
of 24,719,968 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#630
of 2,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,694
of 209,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,719,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 54.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.