TY - JOUR
T1 - Effectiveness of a judo-specific injury prevention programme
T2 - A randomised controlled trial in recreational judo athletes
AU - von Gerhardt, Amber L.
AU - Reurink, Guus
AU - Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J.
AU - Verhagen, Evert
AU - Krabben, Kai
AU - Mooren, Jeroen
AU - Gal, Jessica S. I.
AU - Brons, Arnold
AU - Joorse, Ronald
AU - van den Broek, Benny
AU - Kemler, Ellen
AU - Tol, Johannes L.
N1 - Funding Information:
Our study was a two-armed, cluster randomised controlled trial. We followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement for reporting randomised controlled trials. The study protocol was registered in the Dutch trial register (NTR7698). The study was partly funded by The Dutch Organization for Health and Research and Development (ZonMw).
Funding Information:
This study was partly funded by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/4
Y1 - 2023/4
N2 - Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a trainer-supervised judo-specific injury prevention warm-up programme on overall injury prevalence. Methods: We conducted a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial; the Injury Prevention and Performance Optimization Netherlands (IPPON) study. Judo athletes aged≥12 years were randomised by judo school to IPPON intervention or control group who performed their usual warm-up. Primary outcome was overall injury prevalence (%) over the follow-up period (16-26 weeks) measured fortnightly with the Oslo Sports and Trauma Research Centre Questionnaire. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed due to COVID-19, with estimates for the primary outcome obtained using generalised linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes included: prevalence of severe injuries, overall incidence, time-loss injuries, exposure, adherence and experiences of trainers and athletes. Results: 269 judo athletes (IPPON: 117, Control: 152) were included. Mean injury prevalence over 16-26 weeks was 23% (95% CI 20% to 26%) in the IPPON and 28% (95% CI 25% to 30%) in the control group. We observed no significant difference of all reported injuries (OR 0.72 in favour of the IPPON group; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.39). Secondary outcomes also demonstrated no significant differences between groups. Specifically, no significant difference of severe injuries was reported (OR 0.80 in favour of the IPPON group; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78). All trainers and 70% of athletes perceived the IPPON intervention as successful. Conclusion: The IPPON intervention did not significantly reduce the overall and severe injury prevalence. Despite this, we suggest the IPPON intervention be considered as an useful alternative to regular judo warm-up, given the high adherence and the positive clinical experiences of trainers and athletes. Trial registration number: NTR7698.
AB - Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a trainer-supervised judo-specific injury prevention warm-up programme on overall injury prevalence. Methods: We conducted a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial; the Injury Prevention and Performance Optimization Netherlands (IPPON) study. Judo athletes aged≥12 years were randomised by judo school to IPPON intervention or control group who performed their usual warm-up. Primary outcome was overall injury prevalence (%) over the follow-up period (16-26 weeks) measured fortnightly with the Oslo Sports and Trauma Research Centre Questionnaire. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed due to COVID-19, with estimates for the primary outcome obtained using generalised linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes included: prevalence of severe injuries, overall incidence, time-loss injuries, exposure, adherence and experiences of trainers and athletes. Results: 269 judo athletes (IPPON: 117, Control: 152) were included. Mean injury prevalence over 16-26 weeks was 23% (95% CI 20% to 26%) in the IPPON and 28% (95% CI 25% to 30%) in the control group. We observed no significant difference of all reported injuries (OR 0.72 in favour of the IPPON group; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.39). Secondary outcomes also demonstrated no significant differences between groups. Specifically, no significant difference of severe injuries was reported (OR 0.80 in favour of the IPPON group; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78). All trainers and 70% of athletes perceived the IPPON intervention as successful. Conclusion: The IPPON intervention did not significantly reduce the overall and severe injury prevalence. Despite this, we suggest the IPPON intervention be considered as an useful alternative to regular judo warm-up, given the high adherence and the positive clinical experiences of trainers and athletes. Trial registration number: NTR7698.
KW - athletes
KW - athletic injuries
KW - martial arts
KW - randomized controlled trial
KW - sporting injuries
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85148663156&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36717214
U2 - 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105869
DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105869
M3 - Article
C2 - 36717214
SN - 1473-0480
VL - 57
SP - 450
EP - 456
JO - BJSM Online
JF - BJSM Online
IS - 8
M1 - 105869
ER -