↓ Skip to main content

Hamstring Injury Prevention Practices in Elite Sport: Evidence for Eccentric Strength vs. Lumbo-Pelvic Training

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, November 2017
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 (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
91 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
542 Mendeley
Title
Hamstring Injury Prevention Practices in Elite Sport: Evidence for Eccentric Strength vs. Lumbo-Pelvic Training
Published in
Sports Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0819-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony J. Shield, Matthew N. Bourne

Abstract

Hamstring strain injuries are endemic in running-based sports. Given the economic and performance implications of these injuries, a significant body of research has emerged in recent years in an attempt to identify risk factors and develop or optimise injury prevention strategies. Surveys of injury prevention practices among medical and conditioning staff in elite sport suggest that many sporting clubs invest significant efforts in eccentric hamstring conditioning and lumbo-pelvic or trunk stability programmes. The purpose of this narrative review was to critically evaluate the evidence underpinning these practices. Single-exercise eccentric training interventions have proven effective in the prevention of primary and recurrent hamstring strains, when compliance is adequate. However, despite its almost universal acceptance, the authors are aware of only one, very recent, prospective risk factor study examining the effect of lumbo-pelvic motion during sprinting on hamstring injury risk. Furthermore, the interventions exploring the effect of lumbo-pelvic training on hamstring injury rates have not measured stability in any way. An improved understanding of the evidence underpinning commonly employed hamstring injury prevention practices may enable clinicians and coaches to better prioritise effective strategies in the increasingly complex environment of elite sport.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 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 542 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 542 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 92 17%
Student > Bachelor 91 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 10%
Student > Postgraduate 30 6%
Other 25 5%
Other 85 16%
Unknown 167 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 170 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 82 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 72 13%
Social Sciences 6 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 <1%
Other 29 5%
Unknown 178 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 13 September 2023.
All research outputs
#736,376
of 25,552,933 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#685
of 2,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,986
of 336,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#23
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,552,933 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 2,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 336,380 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 46 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 52% of its contemporaries.