SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Acute:chronic workload ratio and load management for team sports: a multilevel meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) has been widely used to monitor training load and injury risk in team-sport athletes. However, its practical utility remains debated because of methodological heterogeneity across load metrics, calculation methods, time-window definitions, sport types, and injury definitions. This systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis aimed to quantify the association between ACWR and injury risk in team-sport athletes and to examine potential moderators. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched from inception through October 2024. Prospective cohort studies or trials were eligible if they included team-sport athletes, reported associations between ACWR and injury outcomes, and provided sufficient data for effect size extraction or conversion. Study characteristics, participant information, injury definition, load metric, ACWR calculation method, time window, sport type, and effect estimates were extracted. Effect sizes were converted to Hedges' g and pooled using a three-level random-effects model. Results: 41 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 16 studies involving 797 athletes were included in the meta-analysis. Elevated ACWR showed a small-to-moderate association with higher injury risk (g = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.54), with substantial heterogeneity (I Conclusion: Elevated ACWR may be associated with increased injury risk in specific contexts, but current evidence does not support its use as a stand-alone causal or predictive model. ACWR should be interpreted as a contextual monitoring indicator within individualized, multi-marker load-management systems. Systematic review registration: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO under the unique identifier CRD420245127618.
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.