ABSTRACT
Objectives Identify neuromuscular risk factors for non-contact knee injury, using a systematic review and meta-analysis, to inform the development of preventive strategies.
Methods Medline, Web of Science and SCOPUS were searched from inception until November 2020. Prospective and nested case-control studies that analysed baseline neuromuscular characteristics as potential risk factors for subsequent non-contact knee injuries were included. Two reviewers independently appraised methodological quality using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate, with standardised mean differences calculated for continuous scaled data.
Results Seventeen studies were included, comprising baseline data from 5,584 participants and 415 non-contact knee injuries (heterogeneous incidence = 7.4%). Protocols and outcome measures differed across studies, limiting data pooling. Twenty-one neuromuscular variables were included in the meta-analysis. Three were identified as risk factors. For patellofemoral pain, among military recruits: reduced non-normalised quadriceps strength at 60º/s (SMD −0.66; 95% CI −0.99, −0.32); reduced quadriceps strength at 240º/s (normalised by body mass) (SMD −0.53; CI −0.87, −0.20). For PFP/ACL injury among female military recruits: reduced quadriceps strength at 60º/s (normalised by body mass) (SMD −0.50; CI −0.92, −0.08).
Conclusions Quadriceps weakness is a risk factor for PFP among military recruits, and for PFP/ACL injury among female military recruits. However, the effect sizes are small, and the generalisability of these findings is limited. The effectiveness of quadriceps strengthening interventions for preventing PFP and ACL injury merits evaluation in prospective randomised trials.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None declared.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis and no IRB/oversight body approval was sought.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data from individual studies were obtained online.
