ReviewCureus2026
Quantifying Workload and Injury Risk Among Cricket Fast Bowlers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bowling workload is a well-recognised contributor to gradual-onset injuries in cricket fast bowlers; however, considerable variability exists in how workload is defined, quantified, and interpreted across studies. Although the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) is widely applied in cricket research, its use remains debated regarding its predictive validity, mathematical limitations, and inconsistent methodological application. This systematic review aimed to synthesise existing evidence on workload quantification and workload-injury associations in cricket fast bowlers and to evaluate acute-chronic workload exposure using a restricted meta-analytic approach. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar was conducted, spanning 2000 to 2024. Boolean search combinations included terms such as "cricket," "fast bowler," "workload," "bowling load," "acute:chronic workload ratio," "injury," and "injury risk." Study screening was performed using Rayyan (Rayyan Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA) following duplicate removal in Mendeley (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands), and eligible studies were independently assessed by three reviewers. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised narratively, while six prospective cohort studies reporting acute-chronic workload exposure with extractable effect estimates were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. The included studies involved elite, sub-elite, and junior male and female fast bowlers and employed diverse workload monitoring methods, including manual tracking, wearable technology, subjective measures, and biomechanical assessments. Across studies, high acute workloads, rapid workload escalations, and inadequate recovery were consistently associated with increased injury risk, particularly involving the lumbar spine. These associations were broadly consistent across competitive levels, although elite cohorts demonstrated more robust monitoring protocols and junior populations exhibited greater vulnerability during rapid load escalation. Elevated ACWR values, typically ranging from approximately 1.4 to 2.0 and above, were associated with higher injury incidence, whereas greater chronic workload exposure appeared protective. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significant association between elevated acute-chronic workload exposure and injury risk (RR = 2.45; 95% CI: 1.48-4.06), although substantial heterogeneity was observed (I
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.