Effects Of Criteria Versus Time-Based Rehabilitation On Return To Play In Football Players

Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18-35
SponsorRiphah International University

About this trial

This randomized controlled trial compares criteria-based rehabilitation (CBR) with time-based rehabilitation (TBR) for football players aged 18-35 with ACL reconstruction, hamstring strain, or ankle sprain. Both groups receive a six-week supervised rehabilitation program; the progression rules differ between groups.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Injury Type: ACL reconstruction, hamstring strain, and ankle sprain.

Rehabilitation Phase: Phase 3 for ACL injuries, Phase 1&2 for hamstring strains and ankle sprains.

Football Activity: Active at club or regional football level

Disqualifiers

History of Major surgery in affected limb

Chronic neurological or musculoskeletal disorder

Non-football athletes

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Experimental: Criteria based

    Other intervention

    * Weeks 1-2: Focus on pain control, ROM restoration, and isometric strengthening (low intensity, 3-4 sets of 10-15 reps). * Weeks 2-4: Closed-chain and eccentric strengthening (moderate intensity, 3 sets of 12-15 reps), balance training, and jogging once LSI ≥ 80%. * Weeks 4-6: Plyometrics, agility, sprinting, and football-specific drills (high intensity, 4-5 sets, 80-85% effort). Participants will only progress or return to play upon meeting the criteria: hop test LSI ≥ 90%, SEBT symmetry, improved ACLRSI,

  • Active comparator: Time based rehabilitation

    Other intervention

    Weeks 1-2: Pain reduction and early strengthening (low intensity, 3 sets of 10-12 reps). * Weeks 2-4: General strengthening, proprioception, and jogging (moderate intensity, 3 sets of 12-15 reps). * Weeks 4-6: Plyometrics, agility, sprinting, and football-specific drills (high intensity, 70-85% effort) All participants will be cleared for return to play at the end of Week 6, regardless of whether they have achieved functional or psychological milestones, reflecting a traditional time-driven rehabilitation approach. This design reflects conventional rehabilitation models used in previous comparative studies, in which exercise progression and RTP clearance are determined by elapsed time rather than by functional recovery.

Treatment groups

52 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Criteria based rehabilitationExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Group B: Time based rehabilitationActive comparator 1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Hop battery test (single, triple, and crossover hop) including limb symmetry index (LSI)

A tool to assess lower-limb strength, power, symmetry and functional performance in athletes post-injury; demonstrates good test-retest reliability (ICC ≈ 0.85-0.97) and valid discriminatory ability, though its capacity to predict re-injury remains inconsistent

Time frame
At baseline, 0 weeks 6 weeks post-intervention
2

Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT/Y-Balance)

Evaluates dynamic balance and postural control; high reliability (ICC 0.85-0.91) and validated in athletes

Time frame
At Baseline After 6 weeks
3

ACL-RSI (Return to Sport after Injury Scale)

Measures psychological readiness and fear of re-injury; strong internal consistency (α = 0.94) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.90)

Time frame
At baseline After 6 weeks of intervention
4

Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK)

Assesses fear of movement and re-injury; validated in musculoskeletal populations with good internal consistency (α = 0.810.87) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.84-0.90)

Time frame
at baseline at 6 weeks post intervention

Secondary outcomes

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options: