Abstract
We welcome the recent systematic review by Andrade et al. [1], who explored in a detailed manner
the question of whether the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) is associated with risk of
time‑ loss injury in professional team sports. Including their paper, there are now at least four
systematic reviews published on this topic over the last two years [1-4]. Despite this number of
evidence syntheses, we would like to highlight the worrying degree of inconsistency in conclusions
between these reviews. While there are some differences between reviews in the selected study
population, we question whether it is heterogeneity in the various appraisals of study quality that
best explains the inconsistency in conclusions.
the question of whether the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) is associated with risk of
time‑ loss injury in professional team sports. Including their paper, there are now at least four
systematic reviews published on this topic over the last two years [1-4]. Despite this number of
evidence syntheses, we would like to highlight the worrying degree of inconsistency in conclusions
between these reviews. While there are some differences between reviews in the selected study
population, we question whether it is heterogeneity in the various appraisals of study quality that
best explains the inconsistency in conclusions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2065-2067 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | Sports Medicine |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Nov 2020 |
Bibliographical note
Copyright:Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.