Structured Neuromuscular Warm-Up (FIFA 11+ Style)
A multi-component warm-up of running, strength, plyometric and balance drills: one way to carry out what the sources on the concept entry studied, structured neuromuscular warm-up programs such as FIFA 11+ with injury as the outcome. Their conclusions are not yet recorded in this library, so this entry states no injury effect.
Learn correct technique; progress plyometric elements gradually.
- Sharp or radiating pain during stretching, stop and consult a clinician.
- Sudden loss of range of motion or joint instability, seek a physical therapist.
- Numbness, tingling, or a recent injury, get medical clearance first.
How to do it
What the evidence says
This practice is one way to carry out what the sources on the concept entry (phys.flexibility.injury-prevention-evidence) studied: structured, multi-component neuromuscular warm-up programs such as FIFA 11+, with injury as the outcome. Those sources are a systematic review with meta-analysis of 10 studies and 5984 participants (Vlachas 2022), a systematic review (Pankaj 2021) and five randomised trials (Carow 2016, Silvers-Granelli 2024, Nuhu 2021, Peck 2017, Hammes 2015). Their conclusions are not yet recorded in this library, so this entry states no injury effect for this warm-up, in either direction. The full account, source by source, is on the concept entry this practice links to (phys.flexibility.injury-prevention-evidence).
- Flexibility is the key injury-prevention factor, the sources on this entry studied multi-component neuromuscular warm-up programs rather than stretching in isolation, and their conclusions are not yet recorded in this library.
- Skipping the strength/balance parts still works, the full program is what was studied.
- Stretching alone provides this injury-reduction benefit.
- Any warm-up equals a structured neuromuscular program.
- This removes all injury risk.
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 7 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- No source states a certainty rating.
What each source measured and concluded (7)
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- systematic review with meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N = 5984 participants across 10 studies
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.