Table 4.
Summary of research that has investigated the effects of injury prevention warm-up protocols on COD biomechanics
| Study | Subjects | Training intervention | COD task | Results (post-intervention) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-MARC 11+ soccer specific warm-up | |||||
| Thompson et al. [70] |
51 females aged 10–12 years soccer players *5 withdrawals |
F-MARC 11 + (n = 26) 2 × a week for 7–8 weeks—15 sessions total plus CG (n = 20) |
45° ± 5°, side-step Sidesteps -PP and UP ~ 4 m.s−1 |
Bilateral jump (IG) ↓ peak KAM (p = 0.045, ES = 2.15) Side-stepping (IG) ↑ peak KAM PP (p = 0.280, ES = 1.20, 10%) and UP (p = 0.044, ES = 1.98, 18%) |
Did not establish reliability, measurement error, or meaningful difference Athlete compliance 70.2 ± 14.0% |
| Thompson-Kolaser et al. [71] |
51 preadolescent females (28 intervention, 23 CG)* 5 withdrawals and 43 adolescent (22 intervention, 21 CG)* 6 withdrawals |
F MARC 11 + (n = 26) 2 × a week for 7–8 weeks—15 sessions total plus CG (n = 20) |
45° ± 5°, side-step Sidesteps -PP and UP ~ 4 m.s−1 |
Preadolescents—PP side-step ↑ precontact flexor-extensor muscle contraction (p = 0.004-0.002) Both groups—side-step ↔ in knee valgus angles or peak KAM—Inspection of graphs indicate ↑ peak KAMs in both groups (Descriptive data not provided so ES cannot be calculated) |
Highlights ineffectiveness of intervention for addressing cutting mechanics—only effective for bilateral task Lack of volume and exercises that addresses COD mechanics with feedback, and lack of dynamic trunk exercises |
| Oslo neuromuscular injury-prevention warm-up | |||||
| Zebis et al. [73] | Elite handball (n = 8) and elite soccer (n = 12) players | Oslo NMS warm intervention—20 min warm up—one season | Side-step (no other decsriptions provided) |
↑ Pre-landing EMG activity ST (p < 0.001, ES = 0.70-0.78) and activity at foot strike (p < 0.05, ES = 0.60) ↔ Quadriceps EMG (ES = 0.10-0.23) ↔ Knee and hip joint angles (ES = 0.11) |
Low sample size Investigated low number of biomechanical variables No CG |
| Zebis et al. [72] | 40 adolescent female football and handball players |
12 week Oslo NMS warm up—3 × a week (n = 20) plus a CG (n = 20) |
Side-step (no other decsriptions provided) |
IG ↓ VL-ST activity difference (43%, p < 0.0001) ↑ hamstring MVC (p = 0.0134) ↓ VL EMG preactivity (23%, p < 0.0008), ↑ ST EMG preactivity (18%, p < 0.0001), and ↑ BF EMG preactivity vs CG ↔ peak KAM or knee valgus angle at IC (Descriptive data not provided, thus ES cannot be calculated) |
Only frontal plane knee kinetics and kinematics |
| Core-Pac warm-up | |||||
| Celebrini et al. [75] | Ten adolescent female soccer players |
baseline testing—acute changes (n = 10) (move from the centre- lead with the belly button) 4 week—Core-Pac training intervention (n = 7) 4 × week |
15–55° side-step PP and UP |
5 of 7 subjects displayed ↑ knee flexion angle and ↓ peak KAM |
Individual differences in response to training intervention No CG |
| Celebrini et al. [74] | Twenty adolescent female soccer players |
6 week—Core-Pac training intervention—4 × a week (n = 10) plus a CG (n = 9) |
15–55° side-step PP and UP |
IG ↑ knee flexion angle PP cutting (p = 0.001, ES = 2.02) ↔ peak KAM for PP and UP (Raw data not provided, thus ES cannot be calculated) |
Low sample size No immediate feedback regarding their technique or biofeedback |
↑ increase, ↓ decrease, ↔ no significant change, KAM knee abduction moment, IC initial contact, IRM internal rotation moment, GCT ground contact time, BW body weight, NMS neuromuscular, PP pre-planned, UP unplanned, EMG electromyography, RT resistance training, ES effect size, CG control group, IG intervention group, COD change of direction, SD standard deviation, VL vastus lateralis, BF biceps femoris, ST semitendinosus, VPF vertical propulsive force, MVC maximal voluntary contraction, Core-Pac core position and control, F MARC 11 + FIFA NMS warm-up, IC initial contact