Objective To identify, critique and synthesise the research findings that evaluate the use of resistance training (RT) programmes on return to sport outcome measures for people following ACL repair (ACLR). Design and data sources This systematic review included a comprehensive search of electronic databases (EBSCO health databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus), Scopus and Pedro) performed in June 2020 and was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Studies were appraised using the Downs and Black checklist. Eligibility criteria Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, longitudinal cohort studies and case series were considered for inclusion where an adequate description of the RT intervention was provided as a part of the study’s ACLR rehabilitation protocol. Articles that did not include outcome measures related to return to sport criteria were excluded. Results Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to appraisal and data extraction. Study quality ranged from poor to excellent. RT intensity varied considerably among studies (between 5% and >80% of one repetition maximum). Only one identified study specifically investigated the effect of a low-intensity versus high-intensity RT protocol. The majority of studies reported participant outcomes that would not meet commonly used return to sport criteria. Conclusion There appears to be considerable variation in the intensity of RT prescribed in research for people following ACLR. Furthermore, in most of the identified studies, RT protocols promoted muscle endurance and hypertrophy without progressing to strength or power-based RT. The findings of this review provide insight into potential factors limiting returning to sport and contributing to reinjury for people following ACLR.

中文翻译：

---

阻力训练强度是否足以满足前交叉韧带修复后重返运动的需求？系统评价

目的 识别、批评和综合评估阻力训练 (RT) 计划对 ACL 修复 (ACLR) 后患者恢复运动结果测量的使用的研究结果。设计和数据来源 本系统评价包括对 2020 年 6 月进行的电子数据库（EBSCO 健康数据库（CINAHL、MEDLINE、SPORTDiscus）、Scopus 和 Pedro）的全面搜索，并以系统评价和元分析的首选报告项目清单为指导. 使用 Downs 和 Black 清单对研究进行评估。资格标准 随机和非随机对照试验、纵向队列研究和病例系列被考虑纳入，其中作为研究的 ACLR 康复方案的一部分提供了对 RT 干预的充分描述。不包括与回归运动标准相关的结果测量的文章被排除在外。结果 11篇文章符合纳入标准，并进行了评价和数据提取。学习质量从差到优不等。RT 强度在研究之间差异很大（在一次重复最大值的 5% 和 >80% 之间）。只有一项确定的研究专门研究了低强度与高强度 RT 方案的效果。大多数研究报告的参与者结果不符合常用的回归运动标准。结论 对于 ACLR 后的人群，研究中规定的 RT 强度似乎存在相当大的差异。此外，在大多数已确定的研究中，放疗方案促进了肌肉耐力和肥大，而没有发展为基于力量或功率的放疗。