| Title |
ACL Injury Prevention: What Does Research Tell Us?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12178-017-9416-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Trent Nessler, Linda Denney, Justin Sampley |
| Abstract |
Mechanisms leading to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury have been identified, yet re-injury or a secondary injury persists in the athletic population. The purpose of this review is to identify risk factors associated with ACL injury and investigate programs to prevent injury. Faulty mechanics during dynamic movement that cause excessive valgus force at the knee increases the risk of ACL injury. Faulty mechanics may be a result of lateral displacement of the trunk, unequal limb loading, and lack of control to avoid the valgus knee position. Altered movements that place the ACL at risk are best identified in a fatigued state; however, could be recognized in a standard dynamic assessment. The faulty movement patterns are modifiable and should be addressed in an injury prevention program. Prevention programs include various modes of exercise such as plyometrics, neuromuscular training, and strength training. This review concludes that those programs which utilize neuromuscular training and strength training at a young age show the most promise in reducing ACL injuries. An ongoing thorough dynamic examination is necessary for all athletes while adjusting the intervention program in order to decrease the risk of ACL injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 43% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
| Scientists | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 622 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 622 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 145 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 68 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 4% |
| Other | 79 | 13% |
| Unknown | 242 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 123 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 87 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 11% |
| Engineering | 29 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 17 | 3% |
| Other | 42 | 7% |
| Unknown | 256 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 09 June 2023.
All research outputs
#654,933
of 25,632,496 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#10
of 541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,652
of 329,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,632,496 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 541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 329,018 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them