Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality.

Youth have very high participation and injury rates in sport. Sport is the leading cause of injury in youth. Sport injury reduces future participation in physical activity which adversely affects future health. Sport injury may lead to overweight/obesity and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. The objective of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of injury prevention neuromuscular training strategies in youth sport. Three electronic databases were systematically searched up to September 2014. Studies selected met the following criteria: original data; analytic prospective design; investigated a neuromuscular training prevention strategy intervention(s) and included outcomes for injury sustained during sport participation. Two authors assessed the quality of evidence using Downs and Black (DB) criteria. Meta-analyses including randomised controlled trials only (RCTs) to ensure study design homogeneity were completed for lower extremity and knee injury outcomes. Of 2504 potentially relevant studies, 25 were included. Meta-analysis revealed a combined preventative effect of neuromuscular training in reducing the risk of lower extremity injury (incidence rate ratio: IRR=0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.84)). Though not statistically significant, the point estimate suggests a protective effect of such programmes in reducing the risk of knee injury (IRR=0.74 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.07)). There is evidence for the effectiveness of neuromuscular training strategies in the reduction of injury in numerous team sports. Lack of uptake and ongoing maintenance of such programmes is an ongoing concern. A focus on implementation is critical to influence knowledge, behaviour change and sustainability of evidence informed injury prevention practice.

Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) of the abdominal muscles is increasingly being used in the management of conditions involving musculoskeletal dysfunctions associated with the abdominal muscles, including certain types of low back and pelvic pain. This commentary provides an overview of current concepts and evidence related to RUSI of the abdominal musculature, including issues addressing the potential role of ultrasound imaging in the assessment and training of these muscles. Both quantitative and qualitative aspects associated with clinical and research applications are considered, as are the possible limitations related to the interpretation of measurements made with RUSI. Research to date has utilized a range of methodological approaches, including different transducer placements and imaging techniques. The pros and cons of the various methods are discussed, and guidelines for future investigations are presented. Potential implications and opportunities for clinical use of RUSI to enhance evidence-based practice are outlined, as are suggestions for future research to further clarify the possible role of RUSI in the evaluation and treatment of abdominal muscular morphology and function.

Background The identification of risk factors for groin injury in sport is important to develop and implement injury prevention strategies. Objective To identify and evaluate the evidence examining risk factors for groin injury in sport. Material and methods Nine electronic databases were systematically searched to June 2014. Studies selected met the following criteria: original data; analytic design; investigated a risk factor(s); included outcomes for groin injury sustained during sport participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and two independent authors assessed the quality and level of evidence with the Downs and Black (DB) criteria and Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine model, respectively. Results Of 2521 potentially relevant studies, 29 were included and scored. Heterogeneity in methodology and injury definition precluded meta-analyses. The most common risk factors investigated included age, hip range of motion, hip adductor strength and height. The median DB score across studies was 11/33 (range 6–20). The majority of studies represented level 2 evidence (cohort studies) however few considered the inter-relationships between risk factors. There is level 1 and 2 evidence that previous groin injury, higher-level of play, reduced hip adductor (absolute and relative to the hip abductors) strength and lower levels of sport-specific training are associated with increased risk of groin injury in sport. Conclusions We recommended that investigators focus on developing and evaluating preparticipation screening and groin injury prevention programmes through high-quality randomised controlled trials targeting athletes at greater risk of injury.

Objective To identify and quantify potential risk factors for osteoarthritis (OA) following traumatic knee injury. Design Systematic review and meta-analyses that estimated the odds of OA for individual risk factors assessed in more than four studies using random-effects models. Remaining risk factors underwent semiquantitative synthesis. The modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for prognostic factors guided the assessment. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL searched from inception to 2009–2021. Eligibility Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies assessing risk factors for symptomatic or structural OA in persons with a traumatic knee injury, mean injury age ≤30 years and minimum 2-year follow-up. Results Across 66 included studies, 81 unique potential risk factors were identified. High risk of bias due to attrition or confounding was present in 64% and 49% of studies, respectively. Ten risk factors for structural OA underwent meta-analysis (sex, rehabilitation for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear, ACL reconstruction (ACLR), ACLR age, ACLR body mass index, ACLR graft source, ACLR graft augmentation, ACLR+cartilage injury, ACLR+partial meniscectomy, ACLR+total medial meniscectomy). Very-low certainty evidence suggests increased odds of structural OA related to ACLR+cartilage injury (OR=2.31; 95% CI 1.35 to 3.94), ACLR+partial meniscectomy (OR=1.87; 1.45 to 2.42) and ACLR+total medial meniscectomy (OR=3.14; 2.20 to 4.48). Semiquantitative syntheses identified moderate-certainty evidence that cruciate ligament, collateral ligament, meniscal, chondral, patellar/tibiofemoral dislocation, fracture and multistructure injuries increase the odds of symptomatic OA. Conclusion Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that various single and multistructure knee injuries (beyond ACL tears) increase the odds of symptomatic OA. Risk factor heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and inconsistency in risk factors and OA definition make identifying treatment targets for preventing post-traumatic knee OA challenging.

The use of ultrasound imaging by physical therapists is growing in popularity. This commentary has 2 aims. The first is to introduce the concept of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI), provide a definition of the scope of this emerging tool in regard to the physical therapy profession, and describe how this relates to the larger field of medical ultrasound imaging. The second aim is to provide an overview of basic ultrasound imaging and instrumentation principles, including an understanding of the various modes and applications of the technology with respect to neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation and in relation to other common imaging modalities.