A Prevention Strategy to Reduce the Incidence of Injury in High School Basketball: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a sport-specific balance training program in reducing injury in adolescent basketball. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-five high schools in Calgary and surrounding area. SUBJECTS: Nine hundred and twenty high school basketball players (ages 12-18). INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomly allocated by school to the control (n = 426) and training group (n = 494). Both groups were taught a standardized warm-up program. The training group was also taught an additional warm-up component and a home-based balance training program using a wobble board. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All injuries occurring during basketball that required medical attention and/or caused a player to be removed from that current session and/or miss a subsequent session were then recorded and assessed by a team therapist who was blinded to training group allocation. RESULTS: A basketball-specific balance training program was protective of acute-onset injuries in high school basketball [RR = 0.71 (95% CI; 0.5-0.99)]. The protective effect found with respect to all injury [RR = 0.8 (95% CI; 0.57-1.11)], lower-extremity injury [RR = 0.83 (95% CI; 0.57-1.19)], and ankle sprain injury [RR = 0.71 (95% CI; 0.45-1.13)] were not statistically significant. Self-reported compliance to the intended home-based training program was poor (298/494 or 60.3%). CONCLUSIONS: A basketball-specific balance training program was effective in reducing acute-onset injuries in high school basketball. There was also a clinically relevant trend found with respect to the reduction of all, lower-extremity, and ankle sprain injury. Future research should include further development of neuromuscular prevention strategies in addition to further evaluation of methods to increase compliance to an injury-prevention training program in adolescents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".