Abstracts

157 Have modern footwear reduced running-related injury risk?
Joseph Hamill, PhD 1
1
Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA
Running related injuries have been reported in studies by several groups (McKean 2006, Taunton 2003, Clement 1981,
Macintyre 1991) since 1980. Generally, these results can be interpreted such that there has been no change in the incidence (~30-46%/year) or
the location of the injuries (majority of injuries to the knee; ~40-47%/year). Many researchers have interpreted this to mean that the advances in
athletic footwear have not been sufficient to provide runners with relief from injuries. However, running-related injuries are multi-factorial and while
running footwear is a single risk factor, it is not the only risk factor. While there have been many advances/design features in running footwear over
the years to increase shock absorption, to control medio-lateral function, to increase the traction of footwear, to increase the breathability of the
upper, etc., it has been difficult to relate these advances to the reduction of running-related injuries. The problem with many of the research studies
that have investigated this question have been retrospective in nature and thus do not completely answer whether modern footwear reduces
running-related injuries. There have been relatively few prospective studies that have investigated this question. As a result, we cannot completely
answer whether modern footwear can reduce running-related injuries. One major development in footwear over the years that has been suggested is
that footwear is task specific. That is, different footwear constructions should be employed for different types of running. While we may never
answer the question in the title definitively, we do know that modern running footwear are probably ‘safer’ than the shoes used several decades ago.
158 Sports injury surveillance systems: A review of methods and data quality
C. Ekegren 1 * • B. Gabbe 1 • C. Finch 2
1
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University • 2 ACRISP, Federation University Australia
Friday 23 October
Introduction: Data from sports injury surveillance systems are the primary requisite for the development and evaluation of injury prevention
strategies. This review aimed to identify sports injury surveillance systems currently in operation internationally, and thereby determine the sports
and settings for which knowledge gaps still exist. A secondary aim was to determine which of the reviewed sports injury surveillance systems have
evaluated the quality of their data and to report the results of those evaluations. By reviewing studies of sports injury data quality, there is potential
to identify possible sources of error or gaps in surveillance data and to clarify whether particular surveillance methodologies could be improved.
Methods: A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature was carried out to identify: i) publications presenting details of sports injury
surveillance systems within clubs and organisations; and ii) publications describing the quality of data from these systems. Data extracted included
methodological details of the surveillance systems, methods used to evaluate data quality, and results of these evaluations.
Results: Following literature search and review, a total of 14 sports injury surveillance systems were identified. Eleven of the 14 surveillance systems
were found to exist within professional and elite sports, and only three within non-professional sports. Six of the included systems operate within
various football codes and six collect data on male athletes only. No surveillance systems were found that are devoted solely to female athletes, nor
are there any aimed specifically at recording injuries in children. Publications concerning data quality were identified for only seven (50%) systems.
Validation of system data through comparison with alternate sources has been undertaken for only four systems (29%).
Discussion: Sports injury surveillance systems with high quality data are needed to monitor sports injury trends and to design and evaluate sports
injury prevention strategies. This review identified that the majority of sports injury surveillance systems currently exist only within professional and
elite sport settings, exacerbating the knowledge gap about injuries in amateur and community sport settings. Also, across all current sports injury
surveillance systems, further validation studies are required. Although this is a difficult and time-consuming process, without these quality
assessment studies there will continue to be limited scope to reduce error in surveillance data and improve surveillance practices.
159 How effective are F-MARC injury prevention programs for Soccer Players? A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis
W. Al Attar 1 * • N. Soomro 1 • P. Sinclair 1 • E. Pappas 1 • R. Sanders 1
1
Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney
Background: The FIFA Medical and Research Centre (F-MARC) have designed a comprehensive warm-up program targeting muscular strength,
body kinaesthetic awareness, and neuromuscular control during static and dynamic movements to decrease injury risk for soccer players. Prior
studies have investigated the effectiveness of the F-MARC programs but have not consistently reported a benefit from the programs The purpose
of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and interventional studies that evaluated the
efficacy of the F-MARC injury prevention programs in soccer.
Methods: Two independent researchers performed a search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via OvidSP, AMED: Allied and
Complementary Medicine via OvidSP (1985 – present), Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL and AusSportMed.
The keyword domains used during the search were F-MARC, FIFA 11+, the11+, injury prevention programs, soccer, and variations of these
keywords. The initial search resulted in 4299 articles which were filtered to 9 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Main inclusion criteria were
RCT or interventional studies, use of F-MARC injury prevention programs, and primary outcome measuring overall and lower extremity injuries.
Extracted data were entered and analysed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, Version 2 (CMA.V2).
Results: The pooled results based on total injuries per 1000 hours of exposure showed that the F-MARC injury prevention programs had a
statistically significant reduction in the overall injury risk ratio to 0.771 (95% CI: 0.647-0.918, p = 0.003) and lower extremity injury risk ratio of
0.762 (95% CI: 0.621 – 0.935, p = 0.009). Moreover, F-MARC ‘11+’ had a statistically significant reduction in the overall injury risk ratio of 0.654
(95% CI: 0.537- 0.798, p