Objective. To review the influence of cleats-surface interaction on the performance and risk of injury in soccer athletes. Design. Systematic review. Data Sources. Scopus, Web of science, PubMed, and B-on. Eligibility Criteria. Full experimental and original papers, written in English that studied the influence of soccer cleats on sports performance and injury risk in artificial or natural grass. Results. Twenty-three articles were included in this review: nine related to performance and fourteen to injury risk. On artificial grass, the soft ground model on dry and wet conditions and the turf model in wet conditions are related to worse performance. Compared to rounded studs, bladed ones improve performance during changes of directions in both natural and synthetic grass. Cleat models presenting better traction on the stance leg improve ball velocity while those presenting a homogeneous pressure across the foot promote better kicking accuracy. Bladed studs can be considered less secure by increasing plantar pressure on lateral border. The turf model decrease peak plantar pressure compared to other studded models. Conclusion. The soft ground model provides lower performance especially on artificial grass, while the turf model provides a high protective effect in both fields.

[Purpose] To determine if pressure biofeedback unit readings are related to abdominal muscle activation and centre of pressure displacement as well as to test the effects of using it as a biofeedback tool to control lumbopelvic motion. [Participants and Methods] Eighteen volunteers with chronic nonspecific low back pain (21.28 ± 1.41 years old) who performed an active straight leg raising (dynamic postural challenge) with and without pressure biofeedback. Changes in the pressure biofeedback unit and on centre of pressure displacement were assessed, as well as bilateral electromyographic abdominal muscle activity. Participants were not allowed to use a Valsalva manoeuvre. [Results] Pressure variation was not significantly correlated with abdominal muscle activity or with mediolateral centre of pressure displacement. When used as a biofeedback instrument, there was a significant increase in almost all abdominal muscles activity as well as a significant decrease in pressure variation and in mediolateral centre of pressure displacement while performing an active straight leg raising with a normal breathing pattern. [Conclusion] Despite not being an indicator of abdominal muscle activity or mediolateral load transfer in the supine position, the pressure biofeedback unit could have great relevance when used in the clinic for biofeedback purposes in individuals with low back pain.