Purpose: Low injury rates have previously been correlated with sporting team success, highlighting the importance of injury prevention programs. Recent methods, such as acute:chronic workload ratios (ACWR) have been developed in an attempt to predict and manage injury risk; however, the relation between these methods and injury risk is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesize the key findings of studies that have investigated the relationship between ACWR and injury risk.
Methods: Included studies were critically appraised using the Downs and Black checklist, and a level of evidence was determined. Relevant data were extracted, tabulated, and synthesized.
Results: Twenty-seven studies were included for review and ranged in percentage quality scores from 48.2% to 64.3%. Almost perfect interrater agreement (κ = 0.885) existed between raters. This review found a high variability between studies with different variables studied (total distance versus high speed running), as well as differences between ratios analyzed (1.50– 1.80 versus ≥ 1.50), and reference groups (a reference group of 0.80– 1.20 versus ≤ 0.85).
Conclusion: Considering the high variability, it appears that utilizing ACWR for external (eg, total distance) and internal (eg, heart rate) loads may be related to injury risk. Calculating ACWR using exponentially weighted moving averages may potentially result in a more sensitive measure. There also appears to be a trend towards the ratios of 0.80– 1.30 demonstrating the lowest risk of injury. However, there may be issues with the ACWR method that must be addressed before it is confidently used to mitigate injury risk. Utilizing standardized approaches will allow for more objective conclusions to be drawn across multiple populations.

Keywords: injury prevention, training load, athletics


中文翻译：

---

急性：慢性工作负荷比与运动损伤风险之间的关系：系统回顾


目的：以前，低受伤率与运动队的成功相关，强调了伤害预防计划的重要性。最近开发的方法，例如急性：慢性工作负荷比（ACWR），试图预测和管理伤害风险；然而，这些方法与伤害风险之间的关系尚不清楚。本系统综述的目的是确定并综合调查 ACWR 与伤害风险之间关系的研究的主要结果。

方法：使用 Downs 和 Black 检查表对纳入的研究进行严格评估，并确定证据水平。提取、制表并综合相关数据。

结果：纳入了 27 项研究进行审查，质量分数百分比范围为 48.2% 至 64.3%。评估者之间存在几乎完美的评估者间一致性（κ = 0.885）。本综述发现，不同变量研究（总距离与高速跑步）之间存在很大差异，分析的比率（1.50-1.80 与 ≥ 1.50）和参考组（0.80-1.20 与 ≤ 的参考组）之间也存在差异。 0.85）。

结论：考虑到高变异性，利用 ACWR 进行外部（例如总距离）和内部（例如心率）负荷可能与受伤风险相关。使用指数加权移动平均值计算 ACWR 可能会产生更灵敏的测量结果。比率似乎还呈 0.80-1.30 的趋势，表明受伤风险最低。然而，在放心地使用 ACWR 方法来降低伤害风险之前，必须解决这些问题。利用标准化方法将可以在多个人群中得出更客观的结论。


关键词：伤害预防，训练负荷，竞技