Player-Level Tackle Training Interventions in Tackle-Collision Sports: A Systematic Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background In tackle-collision sports, the tackle has the highest incidence, severity, and burden of injury. Head injuries and concussions during the tackle are a major concern within tackle-collision sports. To reduce concussion and head impact risk, evaluating optimal tackle techniques to inform tackle-related prevention strategies has been recommended. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic scoping review of player-level tackle training intervention studies in all tackle-collision sports. Methods The Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage scoping review process and Levac et al.’s framework were used, along with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The main inclusion criteria were that the study included an intervention aimed at improving a player’s tackle abilities, and the intervention had to be delivered/implemented at the player-level in a training setting. Results Thirteen studies were included in this review, seven studies in American Football (54%), followed by a combined cohort of rugby union and rugby league players (three studies; 23%), rugby union (two studies; 15%), and one study reported on a rugby league cohort (8%). Studies focused primarily on the tackler, with the intervention incorporating a form of instruction or feedback, delivered through video or an expert coach. Other interventions included an 8-week strength and power training programme, designing practice sessions based on baseline data, and helmetless training in American Football. All interventions demonstrated a favourable change in the outcome measured—which included tackler and ball-carrier kinematics based on motion capture video, tackler proficiency scoring, tackling task analysis, head impact frequencies by xPatch head-impact sensor technology, head impact kinematics using head-impact sensors (helmet or skin patches) and football tackle kinematics with motion capture systems or video. Conclusion This review shows that a range of studies have been undertaken focusing on player-level training interventions. The quality of studies were rated as ‘good’, and all studies showed improvements in outcome measures. Coaches and policy makers should ensure tackle technique is profiled alongside other player characteristics, and an evidence-based approach to improving player tackling is adopted, improving both performance and reducing injury risk. Key Points Only 13 studies tested or implemented interventions at the player level in tackle-collision sports. The focus of the studies was primarily on the tackler, with the interventions incorporating a form of instruction or feedback, which was delivered through video or an expert coach. Other interventions included an 8-week strength and power training programme, designing practice sessions based on baseline data, and helmetless training in American Football. All interventions demonstrated a favourable change in the outcome measure and provide coaches and policymakers with tackle training insights. Registration The systematic scoping review was prospectively registered with OSF (registration number: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V3KZC ).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,360 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».