ReviewBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025
Acute to chronic workload ratio (ACWR) for predicting sports injury risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Epidemiology of musculoskeletal injuries in Chinese collegiate dragon boat athletes: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to comprehensively and quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of single-arm acute to chronic workload ratio (ACWR) in predicting sports injuries through an evidence-based approach and to provide references for injury prevention, physical training and training load management.
methodsCohort studies on ACWR were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, CNKI, and Wanfang, covering the period from the inception of the databases to February 15, 2025. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata (version18.0).
resultsA total of 22 single-arm cohort studies reporting injury incidence by ACWR category were included. Methodological quality assessment identified 16 high-quality (≥ 7 points) and 6 moderate-quality (4-6 points) indicating an overall high quality of the included research. The results of the Meta subgroup analysis showed that the injury incidence in tissue structures was 79% (95% CI [0.67; 0.89]), the injury incidence in the legs was 73% (95% CI [0.57; 0.86]). Additionally, the injury incidence in soccer players was 75% (95% CI [0.61; 0.87]), the injury incidence due to external loading was 64% (95% CI [0.53; 0.74]), or the injury incidence involving both internal and external loads was 69% (95% CI [0.45; 0.89]), and the injury incidence for individuals over the age of 25 was 73% (95% CI [0.50; 0.91]), whereas the injury incidence was minimized when the interval was kept at 0.8-1.3, with an injury incidence of 56% (95% CI [0.14; 0.94]).
conclusionAlthough ACWR is associated with sports injury risk and may be useful in injury prevention strategies, it is necessary to use it with caution as a tool for measuring workload. Due to the heterogeneity between studies, potential publication bias, or differences in ACWR calculation methods, these factors may affect the research results. Therefore, future research should be clearer about its practical applicability. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024615589.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.