Back to all available

Muscle contractile properties of hamstrings in professional soccer players: A systematic review and meta-analysis

anatomy-and-physiology
kinesiology
biomechanics
sports-injury
sports-medicine

Abstract

Tensiomyography (TMG) is a non-invasive tool used to assess contractile properties during an isometric muscle contraction. The purpose of this systematic review was two-fold: 1) to know the scientific evidence of hamstring TMG parameters in professional football players during the season, and 2) to establish the most-frequent values for the main TMG parameters in soccer players compared with the reference values of the TMG software. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and a systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Sport Discus electronic databases with no date restrictions until November 2023. The studies considered for this meta-analysis were: studies investigating professional soccer players between 20- and 29-years measured during the season and reported tensiomyography-derived parameters such as contraction time and/or maximal displacement, and/or delay time, of the hamstring (biceps femoris and semitendinosus). A total of 139 studies were identified and 12 studies were included in the systematic review and for the meta-analysis. All studies underwent a quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, and the NOS score varied from 7/9 to 8/9 in all studies, suggesting a good quality of all articles. The main findings of the study are that of the six parameters analysed, three variables were found to differ significantly. TMG can serve as a valuable tool for assessing neuromuscular function in soccer players. Furthermore, shows the most-frequent values of the BF and the ST, where different values in the TMG parameters can be observed between the synergistic muscles.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.