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