Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Modifying bowling kinematics in cricket pace bowlers with exercise-based injury prevention: a cluster-randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]
Forrest MRL, Hebert JJ, Scott BR, Dempsey AR
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2020 Dec;23(12):1172-1177
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVES: Undesirable bowling kinematics can increase the risk of low back injury. This study investigated if an exercise-based injury prevention program (IPP) could modify bowling kinematics in community-level adolescent pace bowlers. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Pace bowlers from eight cricket organisations were cluster-randomised into an intervention or control group. At baseline and follow-up sessions biomechanical bowling data were collected. Between sessions, the intervention group completed an eight-week IPP while the control continued their normal cricket activity. Treatment effects (95% CI) were estimated with linear mixed models. RESULTS: There were significant treatment effects favouring the intervention group for shoulder counter-rotation (-3.8 degrees; -7.2 to -0.3) and lateral trunk flexion relative to the pelvis (-2.2 degrees; -4.0 to -0.5). Shoulder counter-rotation also increased in the control group by 2.2 degrees (Cohen's d 0.22). There were no effects of the intervention on: lateral trunk flexion at front foot contact (FFC) (1.2 degrees; -2.5 to 4.8), lateral trunk flexion at ball release (BR) (-0.5 degrees; -3.0 to 2.0), pelvis rotation at FFC (0.9 degrees; -4.0 to 2.2 degree), pelvis rotation at BR (-1.1 degrees; -5.7 to 3.6), front hip angle at FFC (1.6 degrees; -3.6 to 6.7), front hip angle at BR (-1.6 degree; -5.0 to 1.9), front knee angle at FFC (-1.1 degrees; -4.5 to 2.3), front knee angle at BR (1.7 degrees; -5.6 to 9.1), or ball velocity (1.1 km/h; -7.5 to 9.7). CONCLUSIONS: The IPP maintained shoulder counter-rotation and lateral trunk flexion relative to the pelvis in the intervention group and this could attenuate injury risk. No treatment effects were observed for lower-limb kinematics.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help