ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and session RPE (sRPE) has been widely used to verify the internal load in athletes. Understanding the agreement between the training load prescribed by coaches and that perceived by athletes is a topic of great interest in sport science. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate differences between the training/competition load perceived by athletes and prescribed/intended/observed by coaches. METHODS: A literature search (September 2020 and updated in November 2021) was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and SPORTDiscus databases. The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/wna4x). Studies should include athletes and coaches of any sex, age, or level of experience. The studies should present outcomes related to the RPE or sRPE for any scale considering overall training/competition sessions (physical, strength, tactical, technical, games) and/or classified into three effort categories: easy, moderate, and hard. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was found between coaches and athletes for overall RPE (SMD = 0.19, P = 0.10) and overall sRPE (SMD = 0.05, P = 0.75). There was a difference for easy RPE (SMD = - 0.44, small effect size, P = 0.04) and easy sRPE (SMD = - 0.54, moderate effect size, P = 0.04). No differences were found for moderate RPE (SMD = 0.05, P = 0.74) and hard RPE (SMD = 0.41, P = 0.18). No difference was found for moderate (SMD = -0.15, P = 0.56) and hard (SMD = 0.20, P = 0.43) sRPE. CONCLUSION: There is an agreement between coaches and athletes about overall RPE and sRPE, and RPE and sRPE into two effort categories (moderate and hard). However, there were disagreements in RPE and sRPE for easy effort category. Thus, despite a small disagreement, the use of these tools seems to be adequate for training monitoring.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk factors for musculoskeletal injuries in military personnel. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out in August 2019 and updated in July 2020 without language or time filters. The inclusion criteria were prospective studies that investigated the risk factors for injuries in military personnel. Only risk factors analyzed by at least ten studies were selected for the meta-analysis. For data analysis, the RevMan5.3 program was used to compare the number of participants with injuries between high- or low-risk groups. The measurement of dichotomous variables was one of the selected parameters for the analysis, as well as the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method, random-effects model, and analysis with a relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval for the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 2,629 studies were identified through databases. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The groups considered at risk were the oldest [RR = 1.22; (95% CI 1.06-1.41)], with overweight or obesity [RR = 1.27; (95% CI 1.08-1, 48)], with previous injuries [RR = 1.15; (95% CI 1.01-1.30)], and with the worst performance in running tests of 1,600-3,200 m [RR = 1.87; (95% CI 1.28-2.71)]. Gender, ethnicity, and smoking were not associated with injuries. However, a subgroup analysis showed that among studies with a follow-up of fewer than 12 months, women presented RR = 2.44 (95% CI 1.65-3.60) more likely to develop injuries. CONCLUSION: Age, overweight or obesity, previous injuries, and performance in the 1600-3200 m run are associated with an increased risk of injury in the military.
