ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2026
Hamstring muscle injury rehabilitation in sports: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 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
Objective: To describe the methodological characteristics and content of published hamstring muscle injury (HMI) rehabilitation programmes in order to inform clinical practice and guide future research. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science electronic databases, on October 2024, using key terms "hamstring" and "rehabilitation", with strategies refined after a preliminary search. Eligible studies included English-language publications involving non-surgically managed acute HMI in humans and reporting rehabilitation protocols. Results: We included 137 articles. Primary research (43.1%, n=59) included mostly cohort and randomised controlled trials (RCTs); secondary research articles (54.0%, n=74) were predominantly narrative reviews. Overall, 54.7% of studies had a low level of evidence. Only 44.2% of primary research focused on HMI rehabilitation programmes of which 47.8% were RCTs. Rehabilitation programme details were often missing. In the subacute/functional phases, strengthening (78.3%) and stretching (55.6%) were most frequently reported. Return-to-sport criteria were reported in only 43.5% of primary research, often based on pain resolution. Across both primary and secondary research, 40 different rehabilitation strategies were identified, with the most frequently reported being eccentric-based strengthening, flexibility exercises, progressive running and agility protocols. Key gaps included lack of standardisation, under-reporting of programme parameters and limited inclusion of diverse sporting populations. Conclusions: Current scientific literature on HMI rehabilitation programmes shows wide variety, limited high-level evidence primary research and under-reporting of key clinical details. More rigorous and inclusive studies are needed to improve the standardisation and clinical applicability of rehabilitation strategies.
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.