Title |
The FIFA 11+ injury prevention program for soccer players: a systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13102-017-0083-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
David Sadigursky, Juliana Almeida Braid, Diogo Neiva Lemos De Lira, Bruno Almeida Barreto Machado, Rogério Jamil Fernandes Carneiro, Paulo Oliveira Colavolpe |
Abstract |
Soccer is one of the most widely played sports in the world. However, soccer players have an increased risk of lower limb injury. These injuries may be caused by both modifiable and non-modifiable factors, justifying the adoption of an injury prevention program such as the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 11+. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the FIFA 11+ injury prevention program for soccer players. This meta-analysis was based on the PRISMA 2015 protocol. A search using the keywords "FIFA," "injury prevention," and "football" found 183 articles in the PubMed, MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, and ScienceDirect databases. Of these, 6 studies were selected, all of which were randomized clinical trials. The sample consisted of 6,344 players, comprising 3,307 (52%) in the intervention group and 3,037 (48%) in the control group. The FIFA 11+ program reduced injuries in soccer players by 30%, with an estimated relative risk of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.93, p = 0.01). In the intervention group, 779 (24%) players had injuries, while in the control group, 1,219 (40%) players had injuries. However, this pattern was not homogeneous throughout the studies because of clinical and methodological differences in the samples. This study showed no publication bias. The FIFA 11+ warm-up program reduced the risk of injury in soccer players by 30%. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 10 | 20% |
Spain | 2 | 4% |
Australia | 2 | 4% |
Zimbabwe | 1 | 2% |
Bahrain | 1 | 2% |
Colombia | 1 | 2% |
Finland | 1 | 2% |
Croatia | 1 | 2% |
Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 30 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 39 | 76% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 14% |
Scientists | 5 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 745 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 152 | 20% |
Student > Master | 101 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 35 | 5% |
Researcher | 28 | 4% |
Other | 93 | 12% |
Unknown | 284 | 38% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sports and Recreations | 196 | 26% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 97 | 13% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 12% |
Social Sciences | 10 | 1% |
Engineering | 6 | <1% |
Other | 32 | 4% |
Unknown | 311 | 42% |