Journal of athletic training · 2014
Risk of Lower Extremity Injury in a Military Cadet Population After a Supervised Injury-Prevention Program.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carow Scott D, Haniuk Eric M, Cameron Kenneth L, Padua Darin A, Marshall Stephen W, DiStefano Lindsay J, de la Motte Sarah J, Beutler Anthony I, Gerber John P
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Specific movement patterns have been identified as possible risk factors for noncontact lower extremity injuries. The Dynamic Integrated Movement Enhancement (DIME) was developed to modify these movement patterns to decrease injury risk.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the DIME is effective for preventing lower extremity injuries in US Military Academy (USMA) cadets.
DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Cadet Basic Training at USMA.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 1313 cadets (1070 men, 243 women).
INTERVENTION(S): Participants were cluster randomized to 3 groups. The active warm-up (AWU) group performed standard Army warm-up exercises. The DIME groups were assigned to a DIME cadre-supervised (DCS) group or a DIME expert-supervised (DES) group; the former consisted of cadet supervision and the latter combined cadet and health professional supervision. Groups performed exercises 3 times weekly for 6 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cumulative risk of lower extremity injury was the primary outcome. We gathered data during Cadet Basic Training and for 9 months during the subsequent academic year. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare groups.
RESULTS: No differences were seen between the AWU and the combined DIME (DCS and DES) groups during Cadet Basic Training or the academic year. During the academic year, lower extremity injury risk in the DES group decreased 41% (relative risk [RR] = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.38, 0.93; P = .02) compared with the DCS group; a nonsignificant 25% (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.49, 1.14; P = .18) decrease occurred in the DES group compared with the AWU group. Finally, there was a nonsignificant 27% (RR = 1.27; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.78; P = .17) increase in injury risk during the academic year in the DCS group compared with the AWU group.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in lower extremity injury risk between the AWU and combined DIME groups. However, the magnitude and direction of the risk ratios in the DES group compared with the AWU group, although not statistically significant, indicate that professional supervision may be a factor in the success of injury-prevention programs.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the DIME is effective for preventing lower extremity injuries in US Military Academy (USMA) cadets.
DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Cadet Basic Training at USMA.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 1313 cadets (1070 men, 243 women).
INTERVENTION(S): Participants were cluster randomized to 3 groups. The active warm-up (AWU) group performed standard Army warm-up exercises. The DIME groups were assigned to a DIME cadre-supervised (DCS) group or a DIME expert-supervised (DES) group; the former consisted of cadet supervision and the latter combined cadet and health professional supervision. Groups performed exercises 3 times weekly for 6 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cumulative risk of lower extremity injury was the primary outcome. We gathered data during Cadet Basic Training and for 9 months during the subsequent academic year. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare groups.
RESULTS: No differences were seen between the AWU and the combined DIME (DCS and DES) groups during Cadet Basic Training or the academic year. During the academic year, lower extremity injury risk in the DES group decreased 41% (relative risk [RR] = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.38, 0.93; P = .02) compared with the DCS group; a nonsignificant 25% (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.49, 1.14; P = .18) decrease occurred in the DES group compared with the AWU group. Finally, there was a nonsignificant 27% (RR = 1.27; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.78; P = .17) increase in injury risk during the academic year in the DCS group compared with the AWU group.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in lower extremity injury risk between the AWU and combined DIME groups. However, the magnitude and direction of the risk ratios in the DES group compared with the AWU group, although not statistically significant, indicate that professional supervision may be a factor in the success of injury-prevention programs.