↓ Skip to main content

Does the FIFA 11+ Injury Prevention Program Reduce the Incidence of ACL Injury in Male Soccer Players?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 7,324)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
183 X users
facebook
17 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
920 Mendeley
Title
Does the FIFA 11+ Injury Prevention Program Reduce the Incidence of ACL Injury in Male Soccer Players?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-017-5342-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly J. Silvers-Granelli, Mario Bizzini, Amelia Arundale, Bert R. Mandelbaum, Lynn Snyder-Mackler

Abstract

The FIFA 11+ injury prevention program has been shown to decrease the risk of soccer injuries in men and women. The program has also been shown to decrease time loss resulting from injury. However, previous studies have not specifically investigated how the program might impact the rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in male soccer players. The purpose of this study was to examine if the FIFA 11+ injury prevention program can (1) reduce the overall number of ACL injuries in men who play competitive college soccer and whether any potential reduction in rate of ACL injuries differed based on (2) game versus practice setting; (3) player position; (4) level of play (Division I or II); or (5) field type. This study was a prospective cluster randomized controlled trial, which was conducted in 61 Division I and Division II National Collegiate Athletic Association men's soccer teams over the course of one competitive soccer season. The FIFA 11+ is a 15- to 20-minute on-the-field dynamic warm-up program used before training and games and was utilized as the intervention throughout the entire competitive season. Sixty-five teams were randomized: 34 to the control group (850 players) and 31 to the intervention group (675 players). Four intervention teams did not complete the study and did not submit their data, noting insufficient time to complete the program, reducing the number for per-protocol analysis to 61. Compliance to the FIFA 11+ program, athletic exposures, specific injuries, ACL injuries, and time loss resulting from injury were collected and recorded using a secure Internet-based system. At the end of the season, the data in the injury surveillance system were crosshatched with each individual institution's internal database. At that time, the certified athletic trainer signed off on the injury collection data to confirm their accuracy and completeness. A lower proportion of athletes in the intervention group experienced knee injuries (25% [34 of 136]) compared with the control group (75% [102 of 136]; relative risk [RR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.61; p < 0.001). When the data were stratified for ACL injury, fewer ACL injuries were reported in the intervention group (16% [three of 19]) compared with the control group (84% [16 of 19]), accounting for a 4.25-fold reduction in the likelihood of incurring ACL injury (RR, 0.236; 95% CI, 0.193-0.93; number needed to treat = 70; p < 0.001). With the numbers available, there was no difference between the ACL injury rate within the FIFA 11+ group and the control group with respect to game and practice sessions (games-intervention: 1.055% [three of 15] versus control: 1.80% [12 of 15]; RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; p = 0.073 and practices-intervention: 0% [zero of four] versus control: 0.60% [four of four]; RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.01-2.59; p = 0.186). With the data that were available, there were no differences in incidence rate (IR) or injury by player position for forwards (IR control = 0.339 versus IR intervention = 0), midfielders (IR control = 0.54 versus IR intervention = 0.227), defenders (IR control = 0.339 versus IR intervention = 0.085), and goalkeepers (IR control = 0.0 versus IR intervention = 0.0) (p = 0.327). There were no differences in the number of ACL injuries for the Division I intervention group (0.70% [two of nine]) compared with the control group (1.05% [seven of nine]; RR, 0.30; CI, 0.06-1.45; p = 0.136). However, there were fewer ACL injuries incurred in the Division II intervention group (0.35% [one of 10]) compared with the control group (1.35% [nine of 10]; RR, 0.12; CI, 0.02-0.93; p = 0.042). There was no difference between the number of ACL injuries in the control group versus in the intervention group that occurred on grass versus turf (Wald chi square [1] = 0.473, b = 0.147, SE = 0.21, p = 0.492). However, there were more ACL injuries that occurred on artificial turf identified in the control group (1.35% [nine of 10]) versus the intervention group (0.35% [one of 10]; RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-1.10; p = 0.049). This program, if implemented correctly, has the potential to decrease the rate of ACL injury in competitive soccer players. In addition, this may also enhance the development and dissemination of injury prevention protocols and may mitigate risk to athletes who utilize the program consistently. Further studies are necessary to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the program implementation and to analyze the efficacy of the FIFA 11+ in the female collegiate soccer cohort. Level I, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 183 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 920 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 920 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 174 19%
Student > Master 128 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 4%
Researcher 39 4%
Other 106 12%
Unknown 378 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 173 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 143 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 127 14%
Unspecified 15 2%
Social Sciences 9 <1%
Other 42 5%
Unknown 411 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 19 April 2024.
All research outputs
#321,384
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#33
of 7,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,688
of 325,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 325,729 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 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.