SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Attenuated strain”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

168 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Timing and Dose Matter: Late High-Speed Exposure and Higher High-Intensity Acceleration Volumes Reduce Hamstring Reinjury Risk in Elite Male Football (Soccer).

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to (a) investigate whether the timing and magnitude of exposure to high-speed running (HSR), sprinting, and high-intensity accelerations during on-field rehabilitation after hamstring strain injury were associated with reinjury risk and (b) examine changes in match running performance upon return to play (RTP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Data from 95 elite male football (soccer) players from five professional clubs competing in major European and Middle Eastern leagues were analyzed. Players with complete rehabilitation load profiles were included in the 2-month and 6-month reinjury analysis. Modified Poisson regression assessed associations between rehabilitation load characteristics and reinjury risk. Match running performance (HSR distance, sprint distance, and high-intensity accelerations per minute) during the five matches before injury and the first five matches after RTP was compared using paired t-tests for the entire cohort. RESULTS: Late introduction of HSR, sprinting, and high-intensity accelerations during rehabilitation (ie, ≥ 60% of rehabilitation progression) was associated with a significantly lower reinjury risk at 2 months (relative risk [RR] range = 0.948-0.969; P < .01) and 6 months (RR range = 0.964-0.979; P < .05). Higher daily exposure to high-intensity accelerations once introduced was protective (RR = 0.861 (0.778-0.951)). There were no meaningful associations between total volume of HSR or sprinting and reinjury. Match running performance metrics did not differ between pre-injury and post-RTP matches (all P > .05). Changes in performance were not correlated with rehabilitation load characteristics. CONCLUSION: The timing of high-intensity running exposure during on-field rehabilitation appeared associated with a lower hamstring reinjury risk. Delaying the introduction of HSR, sprinting, and accelerations, followed by a structured and progressive build-up, was associated with lower risk of reinjury without compromising the subsequent match performance of elite male football players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2026;56(9):611-621. Epub 7 Jul 2026. doi:10.2519/jospt.2026.14077.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effect of a digitally augmented general health promotion intervention on abstinence from health-risk behaviors among emergency department discharge patients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading global cause of death and are driven by modifiable behaviors, such as tobacco use, harmful alcohol consumption, unhealthy diet, and physical inactivity. Recognizing that emergency department (ED) visits represent a unique opportunity to promote behavior change, this trial evaluated a digitally augmented, theory based general health promotion approach, combining a brief telephone-based intervention with mobile instant messaging support, to help discharged ED patients abstain from health risk behaviors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in a major public hospital ED in Hong Kong. Adults (18-65 years) triaged as semi-urgent or non-urgent and with ≥1 health-risk behavior and smartphone access were randomized to receive a digitally augmented, theory‑based general health‑promotion intervention consisting of a brief telephone‑based AWARD‑model intervention (Ask, Warn, Advise, Refer, and Do-it-again) followed by weekly WhatsApp or WeChat messages for 6 months, or to a control group receiving brief telephone advice only. The primary outcome was self-report abstinence from ≥1 health-risk behavior at 6 months; secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants who achieved self-reported abstinence from ≥1 health-risk behavior at 12 months and reduction in the number of behaviors at 6 and 12 months. Of the 2,134 screened patients, 572 were enrolled (286 per group). At 6 months, 30.1% of the intervention participants versus 19.9% of the controls achieved self-reported abstinence (RR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.02; P = 0.006). The intervention also significantly increased the likelihood of fewer risky behaviors at 6 (RR = 1.54; P = 0.01) and 12 (RR = 1.48; P = 0.02) months. Physical inactivity showed the greatest improvement at 6 months (31.7% versus 16.2%; P < 0.001). The effects attenuated after cessation of booster messaging. Limitations include reliance on self-reported outcomes, the single-center study design, and loss to follow-up, which may have affected the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSIONS: A digitally augmented, theory-based general health promotion strategy delivered at ED discharge through brief telephone intervention and mobile instant messaging support demonstrated short-term benefits in promoting self-reported abstinence and reducing health-risk behaviors at 6 months. However, the absence of a sustained effect at 12 months suggests that extended support or maintenance strategies may be required to maintain these improvements over time. Multicenter trials with longer follow-up are warranted to evaluate long-term effectiveness. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration No: NCT06077565).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Remotely Supervised, Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder affects over 280 million people worldwide, and access to effective treatment remains limited. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive option, and portable devices now allow for home-based delivery under varying degrees of remote supervision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy, safety, feasibility, and acceptability of home-based and remotely supervised tDCS for depressive disorders. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 and PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to July 2025, with backward and forward citation searching. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 12 distinct studies (16 reports), of which 6 (50%) were randomized sham-controlled trials forming the meta-analytic pool. Active home-based tDCS produced a small, statistically significant improvement over sham (pooled Hedges g=0.36, 95% CI 0.06-0.66; P=.03; I2=34.3%). The effect was not robust to removal of the single largest positive trial (omitting the one study from 2025: g=0.39, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.91), and trial-level results were mixed: the 2 largest trials (one unsupervised [n=210] and one self-administered [n=141]) were negative on their primary depression outcomes, whereas the largest real-time supervised trial (n=174) was positive (between-group 95% CI 0.51-4.01; P=.01). This estimate was concordant in direction with an independent peer-reviewed meta-analysis of overlapping trials, which reported a pooled Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.74, 95% CI -4.19 to -1.29) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.24, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.49), attenuating to nonsignificance (P>.05) in major depressive disorder without comorbid cognitive impairment. The pooled effect fell at or near the minimal clinically important difference. GRADE certainty was moderate. Adverse events were predominantly mild: one pilot study was terminated early for skin lesions, and one nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in an unsupervised trial. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based and remotely supervised tDCS produces a small, statistically significant but clinically modest antidepressant effect that is sensitive to the inclusion of the largest positive trial, with the 2 largest trials being negative. The available controlled evidence does not establish supervision intensity as a determinant of efficacy. Current data are insufficient to recommend routine clinical adoption; adequately powered trials with standardized supervision and longer follow-up are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Artificial Intelligence Cannot Replace Peer Reviewers but May Help Editors Triage: A Comparative Analysis of a Large Language Model and Human Reviewer Recommendations at the American Journal of Sports Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The peer review system faces increasing strain from rising manuscript volumes, reviewer fatigue, and well-documented interreviewer disagreement. Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential to support the peer review process, but their ability to replicate editorial decisions at high-impact medical journals and their utility as manuscript screening tools remain unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the agreement between an LLM and the final editorial decision on manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Sports Medicine and to evaluate the potential of LLMs as a manuscript screening tool. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional agreement study. METHODS: Fifty-four manuscripts randomly selected from submissions to the American Journal of Sports Medicine (September 2024-October 2024) were reviewed by a locally deployed LLM (Ministral 3 14B; Mistral AI) using a standardized prompt. The artificial intelligence (AI) produced a categorical recommendation (reject, cascade, revision, or accept) and a numerical score (0-100) for each manuscript. Agreement with the final editorial decision was assessed by Cohen kappa (4-category model) for pooled human reviewers (n = 139 reviews) and the AI (n = 54). Screening performance was evaluated by positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Pooled human reviewers demonstrated fair agreement with the final decision (κ = 0.181 [P < .001]; 42.4% agreement), while the AI demonstrated slight, nonsignificant agreement (κ = 0.126 [P = .099]; 37.0% agreement). The AI recommended revision for 61.1% of manuscripts, of which 72.7% were ultimately rejected or cascaded, demonstrating systematic "revision bias." When the AI recommended rejection, 54.5% of those manuscripts were ultimately rejected and 27.3% were cascaded; when the AI recommended cascade, 50% were rejected and 50% were cascaded. However, when the AI recommended rejection or cascade (n = 21), 90.5% received a final decision of rejection or cascade (PPV, 90.5%; specificity, 81.8%). Manuscripts with an AI score <70 were rejected or cascaded 88.0% of the time (PPV, 88.0%). CONCLUSION: AI cannot replicate the nuanced judgment of human peer reviewers at a high-impact sports medicine journal. When AI recommended rejection or cascade, 90.5% of manuscripts received that final decision (descriptive PPV, 90.5%; 95% CI, 71.1%-97.3%), suggesting potential utility as an exploratory first-pass screening tool warranting further validation in larger cohorts. However, AI could not reliably distinguish manuscripts destined for outright rejection from those that would be cascaded to a sister journal-an important limitation for editorial triage applications.

Sports Medicine↗

PubMed2026

Comparative Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Hamstring Injury Prevention in Football Players: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hamstring strain injury is a leading time-loss injury in football, yet trials have evaluated diverse exercise-based prevention programs with limited direct head-to-head evidence. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions for preventing hamstring injuries in football players using exposure-adjusted incidence rate ratios. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA-aligned systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in football players comparing exercise-based interventions to prevent hamstring injuries. Searches covered PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science from inception to January 5, 2026. Interventions were modeled as separate nodes (Nordic hamstring exercise [NHE], FIFA 11, FIFA 11 + , FIFA 11 + Kids, bounding exercise program [BEP], usual training). The primary effect measure was incidence rate ratio (IRR) versus usual training, with ranking by P-scores; exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted by sex-restricted male-only evidence and age group. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 9,282 participants were included. The network was connected but largely star-shaped, with most evidence comparing active interventions against usual training and no direct active-active comparisons. FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence versus usual training (IRR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98; P-score = 0.84). FIFA 11 + Kids showed a favorable but imprecise estimate, whereas NHE showed a modest non-significant reduction and FIFA 11 and BEP showed no clear benefit. Male-only findings were broadly consistent with the primary analysis. Age-stratified analyses suggested that the apparent hierarchy was not fully identical across age strata, but subgroup networks were sparse and exploratory. RoB 2 judged three studies as high risk and eight as having some concerns; no trial was judged as overall low risk. Between-study heterogeneity was substantial, and treatment rankings were, therefore, interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSIONS: In this IRR-based network meta-analysis, FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence compared with usual training. However, certainty across the primary comparisons ranged from low to very low because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, sparse direct evidence for several nodes, reliance on indirect active-active comparisons, substantial between-study heterogeneity, and moderate-to-high risk of bias across the included studies. The treatment hierarchy should, therefore, be interpreted as a low-to-very-low-certainty, population-level summary rather than as a basis for firm recommendations. Further well-reported, age- and population-specific head-to-head trials with consistent exposure, injury-definition, adherence, and intervention-dose reporting are needed. Registration Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD420251243576).

FIFA 11 + ↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗