The current review attempts to establish the effectiveness of injury prevention programmes on sports-performance. An impossible comparison, which kicks in an open door.
Regarding injury prevention, a lot is still unknown. In many sports, the exact risk factors leading to injuries are poorly understood. Therefore, by definition it becomes nearly impossible to establish a substantiated injury prevention programme. Often, these programmes are rather based on assumptions and pretty sales pitches than on facts.
In this study, performance instead of injury has been chosen as an outcome measure for these programmes. Studies of moderate quality were included, showing obvious results. programmes including sports-specific exercises that based on the type of sport, score significantly better in terms of power, strength, velocity and agility. This is not very surprising: you will improve on what you train.
The fact that planking, squatting, non-specific endurance training et cetera have little effect on agility can be expected. As for endurance training, no significant differences were found. Probably because this is a generic ability? With regard to balance, the mixed category even scores better, but perhaps this has something to do with the testing procedure (SEBT)?
Or, stated differently: it is recommended for colleagues in clinical practice to train sports-specific abilities instead of using an injury prevention programme, because there is no such thing as ‘two results for the price of one’. Or should we, like the United States, try to collaborate more with performance trainers as an addition to physiotherapy?