Injury Risk Assessment in Women’s Football: Are We on the Right

Path to Reduce Injury Risk? A Preliminary Systematic Scoping

Review

Asier Intxaurbe Gorostiza

, Ibai Garcia-Tabar

2,3 b

and Igor Setuain

4,5 c

University of the Basque Country (EHU), Spain

Society, Sports and Exercise Research Group (GIKAFIT), Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of

Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country (EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

Physical Activity, Exercise, and Health Group, Bioaraba Health Research Institute, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

Department of Health Sciences, Public University of Navarra (UPNA), Pamplona, Spain

Clinical Research Department, TDN, Advanced Rehabilitation Center, Pamplona, Spain

Keywords: Female Soccer, Injury, Screening, Functional Test.

Abstract: Elite women’s football has experienced exponential growth, accompanied by an increasing in physical

demands and a simultaneous shift in injury patterns. This scoping systematic review synthesised the

methodologies employed in multicomponent screening tests (MCST) designed to mitigate injury risk among

professional and semi-professional female players. Searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus

and Web of Science (from inception in July 2024 to June 2025). Included studies were quantitative studies

conducted on female soccer players. Main outcomes were functional screening profiles. Screening, data

extraction, and quality assessment (Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and the Oxford Levels

of Evidence scales) were performed. Methods and results were reported according to PRISMA guidelines.

The search yielded 4742 articles, of which 8 were included. Overall methodological quality of the studies was

strong, with a moderate level of evidence. MCST protocols assessed mobility, lower-limb strength, core

stability, jump mechanics and sprint mechanics, yet displayed considerable heterogeneity in instrumentation,

metrics and cut off values. Despite growing interest, no universal protocol or consensus has yet emerged,

hampering cross-study comparison and the formulation of robust injury preventive strategies for elite

women’s football.

1 INTRODUCTION

Women’s football has experienced exponential

growth in global popularity and professionalization,

accompanied by increasing physical demands in

training and competition (Emmonds et al., 2019;

FIFA, 2019; Intxaurbe et al., 2025; Ruiz-Rios et al.,

2024).

In recent years, increases in match-related

physical demands, such as sprint distance (29%) and

the distance covered at high-speed running (HSR)

(15%) have been well documented in elite level

female players (FIFA, 2019). This coincides with a

shift in the predominant types of injuries observed.

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1841-7346

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8553-8154

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5014-6847

Injury surveillance data describes thigh muscle

injuries to have become increasingly prevalent, with

hamstring strains (12.4%), ranking as the second most

common injury after ankle sprains (13.9%)(Horan et

al., 2021; Intxaurbe et al., 2025; Ruiz-Rios et al.,

2024).

Injury incidence in female footballers was 5.6

injuries per 1000 hours: 3.2–3.5 during training and

19.1–19.2 during matches (Hallén et al., 2024; López-

Valenciano et al., 2021), slightly lower than in men

(5.7 total; 3.3 training; 19.5 matches). However, the

overall injury burden is greater in female players,

primarily due to increased injury severity (Álvarez-

Zafra et al., 2021; Ruiz-Rios et al., 2024). As such,

246

Gorostiza, A. I., Garcia-Tabar, I. and Setuain, I.

Injury Risk Assessment in Women’s Football: Are We on the Right Path to Reduce Injury Risk? A Preliminary Systematic Scoping Review.

DOI: 10.5220/0013748900003988

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support (icSPORTS 2025), pages 246-255

ISBN: 978-989-758-771-9; ISSN: 2184-3201

injury risk reduction is a key priority but remains

limited in elite women’s football.

Injury risk assessment through physical-

functional screening (e.g., Multicomponent

Screening Tests – MCST) (Cooke et al., 2025) is a

key component to implement injury risk reduction

strategies (Brumitt et al., 2018; Gabbett, 2016).

However, current well-founded methodologies for

MCST assessment (Ruiz-Rios et al., 2024) are

unclear making it essential to establish consensus

protocols based on best evidence to effectively reduce

injury risk and respond to the evolving demands of

the women’s game.

The MCST aims to provide a comprehensive

physical-functional evaluation by integrating

multiple assessments of capabilities related to injury

risk (Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021; Jauhiainen et al.,

2022; A Östenberg & Roos, 2000). Different

protocols have been implemented in real on-field

practice in elite female footballers (Álvarez-Zafra et

al., 2021; FIFA, 2019; Jauhiainen et al., 2022; A

Östenberg & Roos, 2000). MCST protocols typically

assess lower-limb mobility (Álvarez-Zafra et al.,

2021; Jauhiainen et al., 2022; A Östenberg & Roos,

2000) and functional strength (Álvarez-Zafra et al.,

2021; Jauhiainen et al., 2022; A Östenberg & Roos,

2000), abdomino-lumbopelvic (CORE) stability

(Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021) and jumping and

sprinting biomechanics (Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021;

Jauhiainen et al., 2022; A Östenberg & Roos, 2000).

Despite the growing body of evidence linking

MCST to injury risk, measurement protocols and

applied methodologies, a scoping synthesis of current

MCST methods is needed to resolve methodological

discrepancies, consolidate best practices, and develop

standardized MCST-based injury risk screening

protocols for elite women’s football.

Given the rapid evolution of women’s football

(Emmonds et al., 2019; FIFA, 2019), and as

highlighted by others (Nassis et al., 2021; Ruiz-Rios

et al., 2024), a comprehensive methodological

consensus is urgently needed for the implementation

of on-field MCST best practices aimed at reducing

injury risk in female elite football. Therefore, this

systematic scoping review aims to provide an

exploration and a detailed synthesis of the available

research methodological description concerning the

MCST in elite female football players. This review

may help establish a basis for future research, clarify

inconsistencies, and support the development of

standardized injury prevention protocols.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Information Sources and Search

Strategy

This systematic scoping review was reported in

accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-

analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

Systematic searches were performed in three

electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus and

Web of Science) using the search the terms and

keywords detailed in Table 1.

The initial search was conducted from inception

on July 21 to July 29, 2024. No restrictions regarding

the date of publication, or any other aspect, were

imposed. Updated searches were performed in June

16 to June 23 (2025) to ensure the inclusion of the

latest studies.

2.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Manuscripts published in English and meeting PICOS-

based eligibility criteria (Page et al., 2021) were

included for article selection. The criteria were defined

as follows: Participant (P): semi-professional and/or

professional female football players based on the

classification of performance calibre described by

McKay et al.;(McKay et al., 2022) Intervention (I):

football and/or soccer; Comparison (C): with or

without control or comparison group; Outcome (O):

multicomponent screening test (MCST); Study Design

(S): observational descriptive or interventional, cross-

sectional or longitudinal, prospective or retrospective,

articles, not systematic reviews.

The exclusion criteria were men or mixed sample

study, women’s recreational soccer and/or football, or

other sports, animals, studies reporting less than two

measures of MCST, articles written in languages

other than English.

Injury Risk Assessment in Women’s Football: Are We on the Right Path to Reduce Injury Risk? A Preliminary Systematic Scoping Review

247

Table 1: Search strategy for each database.

Database Search Strategy Results (n)

PUBMED

((female [MeSH] OR femal* [Title/Abstract] OR women* [Title/Abstract] OR woman* [Title/Abstract])

AND (soccer [MeSH] OR Football* [Title/Abstract] OR soccer* [Title/Abstract]) NOT (American Football

OR Australian Football)) AND ((assess* [Title/Abstract] OR function* [Title/Abstract] OR evaluat*

[Title/Abstract] OR test* [Title/Abstract] OR screen* [Title/Abstract]) AND (CORE* [Title/Abstract] OR

Stabil* [Title/Abstract] OR “Range of Motion” [Title/Abstract] OR “ROM” [Title/Abstract] OR Stren*

[Title/Abstract] OR Biomec* [Title/Abstract] OR jump* [Title/Abstract] OR sprint* [Title/Abstract] OR

mechani* [Title/Abstract])) AND (Injur* [Title/Abstract] OR lesion* [Title/Abstract] OR risk* [Title/Abstract]

OR incid* [Title/Abstract]))

412

SCOPUS

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( wom?n* OR femal* ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( soccer* OR football* AND NOT

american football OR australian football ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( assess* OR test* OR evaluat* OR screen*

OR function* OR "CORE" OR Stabil* OR "Range of Motion" OR "ROM" OR Strength* OR biomechanic*

OR mechanic* OR jump* OR sprint* OR endur* OR aerob* ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( injur* OR lesion*

OR risk* OR incid* )

3.563

WEB OF

SCIENCE

(TI=("woman") OR AB=("woman") OR TI=(women*) OR AB=(women*) OR TI=(female*) OR

AB=(female*)) AND (KP=("football") OR KP=("soccer") OR TI=(soccer*) OR AB=(soccer*) OR

TI=(football*) OR AB=(football*)) NOT (TI=(“american football”) OR AB=(“american football”) OR

TI=(“australian football”) OR AB=(“australian football”)) AND (TI=(assess*) OR AB=(assess*) OR

TI=(evaluat*) OR AB=(evaluat*) OR TI=(function*) OR AB=(function*) OR TI=(test*) OR AB=(test*) OR

TI=(screen*) OR AB=(screen*)) AND (TI=(“CORE”) OR AB=(“CORE”) OR TI=(Stabil*) OR AB=(Stabil*)

OR TI=(“Range Of Motion”) OR AB=(“Range Of Motion”) OR TI=(“ROM”) OR AB=(“ROM”) OR

TI=(Strength*) OR AB=(Strength*) OR TI=(biomechanic*) OR AB=(biomechanic*) OR TI=(jump*) OR

AB=(jump*) OR TI=(sprint*) OR AB=(sprint*) OR TI=(mechanic*) OR AB=(mechanic*)) AND (TI=(injur*)

OR AB=(injur*) OR TI=(lesion*) OR AB=(lesion*) OR TI=(risk*) OR AB=(risk*) OR TI=(incid*) OR

AB=(incid*))

767

2.3 Study Selection Process and Data

Extraction

All records retrieved from the databases were exported

to Rayyan Intelligent Systematic Review Software

(QCRI 0.1.0), where duplicates were automatically

removed. Three researchers (AIG, IS and IGT)

independently screened titles and abstracts to identify

studies potentially meeting the inclusion and exclusion

criteria. These same researchers screened the full-text

versions of the selected studies based on the eligibility

criteria. Inconsistencies were resolved through mutual

agreement. Reference lists for all the included studies

were finally reviewed to ensure no studies were

missing.

Data extraction from included studies was

collected by the first author (AIG) on a self-customized

Excel spreadsheet. This process was independently

performed by another researcher (IGT) to avoid

missing data and supervised by a third author (IS).

Extracted data included: authors and year of

publication, participants’ sample size and performance

calibre according to McKay et al.,(McKay et al., 2022)

aim of the study, study design, assessed measurements,

and further methodological characteristics.

2.4 Synthesis of Results

Studies were charted based on common topics and

themes: population characteristics (i.e.,

anthropometric measurements, semi-professional

and/or professional female football players),

components of the MCST (i.e., mobility, strength,

CORE, jumping and/or sprinting biomechanics), and

the type of outcomes measured (i.e., MCST in

relation to the injury risk).

2.5 Study Risk-of-Bias Assessment

The methodological quality of the included studies

was assessed by 2 researchers (AI and IGT) using the

Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies

(Thomas et al., 2004). This tool, employed in

descriptive systematic reviews on sports performance

(Oja et al., 2011; Ruiz-Rios et al., 2024), is composed

by 6 criteria: 1) selection bias, 2) study design, 3)

confounders, 4) blinding, 5) data collection methods,

and 6) withdrawals. Each criterion was rated on a

scale of 1 to 3, based on specific questions related to

each section, using the Quality Assessment Tool

dictionary (Thomas et al., 2004). Once all

components were rated, the methodology of the

studies was classified as strong, moderate, or weak

icSPORTS 2025 - 13th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

248

based on a global rating using the Quality Assessment

Tool dictionary (Thomas et al., 2004).

2.6 Certainty Assessment

The 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based

Medicine Levels of Evidence (Howick et al., 2011)

(LoE) scale was employed to determine the level of

evidence presented in the included studies. Two

researchers classified the studies into levels ranging

from 1 (highest LoE) to 5 (lowest LoE).

3 RESULTS

3.1 Study Selection

The full study selection process is detailed in Figure

1. A total of 4742 records were identified through

database searching. After removing duplicates, 3936

remained for title and abstract screening. Of these,

394 reports were selected for retrieval. Following

full-text assessments, 34 records were excluded for

not meeting the inclusion criteria. In total, 8 articles

were included in the review.

Figure 1: Flowchart showing the selection process

following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Review and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

3.2 Study Characteristics and

Synthesis of Results

Table 2 summarises the main features of the included

studies. Publication years ranged from 2000 to 2024,

with the majority (Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021;

Kammoun et al., 2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024;

Poehling et al., 2021; Purdom et al., 2021; Toro-

Román et al., 2023) (75%) published from 2020

onwards. Participants across the studies were

elite/international level (Alexiou & Coutts, 2008;

Benjamin et al., 2020; Chiaia et al., 2009; Gonçalves

et al., 2021; González et al., 2024; Kammoun et al.,

2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024; Poehling et al., 2021;

Purdom et al., 2021; Toro-Román et al., 2023), or

highly trained/national level (Álvarez-Zafra et al.,

2021; Anna Östenberg et al., 2000), female soccer

players from various countries of Europe (Sweden,

Spain and Serbia), North America (USA and

Canada), and Africa (Tunisia). Figure 2 illustrates the

descriptive characteristics of the included articles.

3.3 Study Selection

All studies had a strong global quality rating, except

two studies (Benjamin et al., 2020; Purdom et al.,

2021), which received a moderate rating (Table 3).

All studies were considered to have low risk selection

bias, rated strong, indicating that participants were

representative of the target population. Six studies

(Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021; Chiaia et al., 2009;

Kammoun et al., 2020; Anna Östenberg et al., 2000;

Poehling et al., 2021; Purdom et al., 2021) (75%) had

a moderate study design, while two (Lilić & Majkić,

2024; Toro-Roman et al., 2023) (25%) had a weak

design. All studies were checked for potential

confounders. Due to the heterogeneity of the included

studies, component 4 (blinding) was considered

unsuitable for observational studies, as previously

recommended (Herrero-Molleda et al., 2023; Ruiz-

Rios et al., 2024). Thus, blinding criteria was deemed

not applicable. All studies used valid and reliable data

collection methods. Six studies (Álvarez-Zafra et al.,

2021; Chiaia et al., 2009; Kammoun et al., 2020;

Anna Östenberg et al., 2000; Poehling et al., 2021;

Purdom et al., 2021) (75%) were level 3, and two

(Lilić & Majkić, 2024; Toro-Roman et al., 2023)

(25%) were level 4 on the LoE.

Injury Risk Assessment in Women’s Football: Are We on the Right Path to Reduce Injury Risk? A Preliminary Systematic Scoping Review

249

Table 2: Main characteristics of the studies on anthropometrical, functional and physical of female soccer players.

Reference Year Participants' characteristic Study design Study period Assessed measurements

Ostenberg et al2000

-Female soccer players (n= 108)

-First - Fifth Sweden National

League

-Caliber: Highly Trained and/o

national Level

-Country: Sweden

Observational,

Cohort

Pre-season

-Anthropometric measures

-Mobility: General Joint Laxity

-Isokinetic

-Jumping biomechanics: OLH, TJ, VJ,

Chiaia et al 2009

- Elite female soccer players (n=

26)

-From WUSA

-Caliber: Elite and/o

international level

-Country: United States

Observational,

Cohort

Pre-season

-Anthropometric measures

-Mobility: PROM, Flexibility,

Dynamic functional alignament

-HHD: Hip abductor strength

-CORE: Stabilizer Dead Bug

Moncef

Kammoun e

2020

-Elite female soccer players (n=

75)

-Form the Division 1 and 13 o

them part of the national team

-Caliber: Elite/international level

-Country: Tunisia

Observational,

Cohort

In-season

-Anthropometric measures

-Mobility: Flexibility

-Jumping biomechanics: CMJ

-Sprint: 20m

Poehling et al 2021

-Elite female soccer players (n=

143)

-Caliber: Elite and/o

international level

-Countr

: Canada

Mixed

Longitudinal

Observational,

Cohort

-Anthropometric measures

-Jumping biomechanics: BJ, CMJ, SJ

-Sprint: 10m, 40m

Purdom et al 2021

-Elite female soccer players

(n=29)

-From Division 1

-Caliber: Elite/ international level

-Countr

: United States

Observational,

Cohort

Pre-season

In-season

Post-season

-Anthropometric measures

-Mobility: YBT, Leg Lengt

Asymetry

-Jumping biomechanics: MVP, CMJ

Álvarez-Zafra

et al

2021

-Elite female soccer players (n=

22)

-From Spanish Reto Iberdrola-

Segunda División PRO league

-Caliber: Highly Trained and/o

national Level

-Country: Spain

Longitudinal

observational,

Cohort

Entire

competitive

season

-Anthropometric measures

-Mobility: ROM

-HHD: Hamstring prone 15º, AKE,

Quadriceps 90º

-CORE: Prone plank, side bridge

-Jumping biomechanics: DJ, UDJ,

COHD

Toro Roman e

2023

-Elite female soccer players (n=

24)

-From Division 2

-Caliber: Highly Trained and/o

national Level

-Country: Spain

Cross-

sectional,

quasi-

experimental

In-season

-Anthropometric measures

-HHD: Hand grip, Squat Isometric

strength

-Jumping biomechanics: CMJ, SJ

Lilic 2024

-Elite female soccer players (n=

20)

-Caliber: Elite/ international level

-Country: Serbia

Cross-sectional Pre-season

-Anthropometric measures

-FMS

-Jumping

iomechanics:SJ, CMJ,

CMJA

-Sprint: 20m linear sprint, Slalo

Test, zig-zag test

Abbreviations: WUSA, Women's United Soccer Association; NCAA, National Collegiate Athletic Association; D1, First

Division; MCST, Multicomponent screening test; PROM, Passive Range of Motion; YBT: Y Balance test; FMS, Functional

Movement Screen; MVP, Maximal Vertical Power; CMJ, countermovement jump; CMJA, CMJ with arm swing; CoD,

change-of-direction; DJ, drop jump; UDJ, Unilateral drop jump; OLH, One Leg Hop; TJ, Triple Jump; VJ, Vertical Jump;

SH, Square Hop; BJ, Broad Jump; COHD, Cross over hop distance; KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

icSPORTS 2025 - 13th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

250

Figure 2: Graphical representation of the number of studies analysing multicomponent screening tests (MCST) in the

systematic scoping review.

Table 3: Results of the Quality Assessment Scores (Global rating) and Oxford Levels of Evidence from the included studies.

Study

Selection

ias

Study

design

Confounders Blinding Data Withdrawal

Global

rating

LoE

Ostenberg et al. 1 2 1 — 1 1 Strong 3

Chiaia et al. 1 2 1 — 1 1 Strong 3

Moncef Kammoun et al. 1 2 1 — 1 1 Strong 3

Poehling et al. 1 2 1 — 1 1 Strong 3

Purdom et al. 1 2 1 — 1 3 Moderate 3

Álvarez-Zafra et al. 1 2 1 — 1 1 Strong 3

Toro Roman et al. 1 3 1 — 1 1 Strong 4

Lilic, A. 1 3 1 — 1 1 Strong 4

Abbreviation: LoE, levels of evidence. Note: “Data” are data-collecting methods. The quality assessment scores criteria

were 1, strong; 2, moderate; 3, weak, and—, not applicable. The Oxford LoE was classified from 1, highest level, to 5,

lowest level. Please see the “Methods” section for more details about the applied criteria and the assessment of both global

ratin

and LoE.

Injury Risk Assessment in Women’s Football: Are We on the Right Path to Reduce Injury Risk? A Preliminary Systematic Scoping Review

251

Table 4: Main methodological characteristics of the studies in multicomponent screening test (MCST) of female socce

players.

Reference MCST Examiner Familiarization Material Attempts Laterality

Reference

Statistic

LSI

Ostenberg

et al (2000)

-Mobility

-Same 3

examiners

-NR -N/A -NS -Right/Left -Summation -NR

-Isokinetic

-Same 3

examiners

-NR -Isokinetic Dynamomete

4 -Right/Left -Mean -NR

-Jumping

biomechanic

-Same 3

examiners

-NR

-Measuring Tape

-Wood platform with

belt

-Tape

3 -NR

-Mean (One

Leg Hop)

-Max

-NR

Chiaia e

al. (2009)

-Mobility

-Same

examiner

-NR

-Standard goniometer

-8 and 12 in step

-Gri

-Dominant

/No

Dominant

-Mean -NR

-HHD

-Same

examiner

-NR -HHD 3

-Dominant

/No

Dominant

-Mean -NR

-CORE

-Same

examine

-NR -Stabilizer 3 -N/A -Mean -N/A

Moncef e

al (2020)

-Mobility -NR -NR

-Standard 12 inche

hei

ht box

2 -NR -Max -NR

-Jumping

iomechanic

-NR -NR -Optojump 3 -NR -Max -NR

-S

rint -NR -NR -NR 2 -NR -Max -NR

Poehling e

al (2021)

-Jumping

biomechanic

-Same 2

examiners

-NR

-Measuring tape and

yard stick

-Contact mat

2 -NR -Mean -NR

-Sprint

-Same 2

examiners

-NR -Dual beam timing lights 2 -NR -NR -NR

Purdom e

al. (2021)

-Mobilit

-NR -NR -FMS YBT 3 -Ri

ht/Left -Mean -c

-Jumping

iomechanic

-NR -NR -Vertec apparatus 3 -NA -Max -NA

Álvarez-

Zafra et al.

(2021)

-Mobilit

-NR -NR -Goniomete

2 -Right/Left -Mean -Ratio

-HHD -NR -NR -HD 2 -Ri

ht/Left -Mean -Ratio

-CORE -NR -NR -HHD 2 -Ri

ht/Left -Mean -Ratio

-Jumping

biomechanic

-NR -NR

-Inertial measurement un

sensor

-20 and 50 cm box heigh

-Two standard vide

cameras

-Tape

2 -Right/Left -Mean -Ratio

Toro

Roman e

al. (2023)

-Jumping

iomechanic

-Same

examine

-NR -Optojump 2 -N/A -Max -N/A

-HHD

-Same

examine

-NR

-Hand grip dynamometer

-D

namomete

-Hand grip:

Dominant

-Max -N/A

Lilic A e

al. (2024)

-Jumping

iomechanic

-NR -Yes -Optojump 3 -N/A -Max -N/A

-FMS -NR -Yes -FMS 3 -Right/Left -Summation -N/R

-Sprint -NR -Yes

-Photocells, infrare

timing gates

2 -N/A -Max -N/A

LSI, Limb symmetry index; NR, not reported; N/A, not applicable; NS not specified; Max, Maximal value was chosen fo

the analysis; Mean, Mean value was chosen for the analysis; Summation, Sum of the values were chosen for the analysis;

HHD, Han

-Held Dynamometry; FMS, Functional Movement Screen.

icSPORTS 2025 - 13th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

252

3.4 Results and Synthesis of Individual

Studies

3.4.1 Multicomponent Screening Test

(MCST) Characteristics

Table 4 provides an overview of the main

methodological characteristics of the included studies

that assessed MCSTs.

Mobility

Mobility variables were included in five studies

(Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021; Chiaia et al., 2009;

Kammoun et al., 2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024; Purdom

et al., 2021) (63%). Mobility was assessed using

various methods, including range of motion (ROM),

passive ROM (PROM), flexibility, dynamic

functional alignment, sit and reach (SAR), and the

Functional Movement Screen (FMS).

Lower Limb Strength-Related Variables

Four studies (Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021; Chiaia et al.,

2009; Anna Östenberg et al., 2000; Toro-Román et

al., 2023) (50%) reported lower-limb muscle-strength

variables. Three studies (Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021;

Chiaia et al., 2009; Toro-Román et al., 2023) utilised

a dynamometer assessing the isometric strength of

the quadriceps, hamstring, hip adductors, hip

abductors and hand grip. One study employed an

isokinetic test (Anna Östenberg et al., 2000),

measuring knee flexors and extensors peak torque at

different angles.

Abdominal-Lumbo-Pelvic (CORE) Stability

Strength

Two studies (25%) measured the stabilization

capacity of the abdominal-lumbo-pelvic complex

(CORE) by isometric strength (Álvarez-Zafra et al.,

2021; Chiaia et al., 2009).

Jumping Biomechanics

Jumping biomechanics composed by vertical and

horizontal jumps were measured in seven studies

(Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021; Chiaia et al., 2009;

Kammoun et al., 2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024; Anna

Östenberg et al., 2000; Toro-Román et al., 2023)

(88%). Five studies (Gonçalves et al., 2021;

Kammoun et al., 2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024; Anna

Östenberg et al., 2000; Toro-Román et al., 2023) used

the countermovement jump (CMJ), reporting

jumping height (Gonçalves et al., 2021; Kammoun et

al., 2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024; Anna Östenberg et

al., 2000; Toro-Román et al., 2023) and jumping

flight time.(Toro-Román et al., 2023) One study

(Lilić & Majkić, 2024) measured CMJ with arm

swinging reporting jumping height. Three studies

used the squat jump (SJ), reporting jumping height

(Gonçalves et al., 2021; Lilić & Majkić, 2024; Toro-

Román et al., 2023) and flight time. (s) Two studies

(Álvarez-Zafra et al., 2021; Anna Östenberg et al.,

2000) measured horizontal jumps (one leg hop and

triple hop and cross over hop). One study (Álvarez-

Zafra et al., 2021) measured the drop jump both

bilaterally (DJ) and unilaterally (UDJ). This study

quantified vertical ground reaction forces (VGRFs)

during landings, propulsive force, mechanical power,

and kinematic record of the landing pattern. It also

assessed horizontal jumping by cross-over hop

distance test, measuring VGRFs at initial contact and

horizontal forces. This study was the only study

reporting the asymmetry index.

Sprint Biomechanics

Sprint variables were included in three studies

(Kammoun et al., 2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024;

Poehling et al., 2021) (38%). All studies (Kammoun

et al., 2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024; Poehling et al.,

2021) analysed 10m sprint; two others (Kammoun et

al., 2020; Lilić & Majkić, 2024) 20m; and, another

(Poehling et al., 2021) the 40m sprint. All studies

reported de duration of each sprint in seconds. None

of them reported any kinetic or kinematic variables of

sprinting.

4 CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the existing gap between

physical profile of women’s football and the

methodological consistency required for effectively

screen the injury risk in women’s footballers. This

review shows similar conclusions as a recent

systematic review (Ruiz-Rios et al., 2024),

emphasising the existing heterogeneity between

MCST protocols, limiting comparability and practical

applications. Given the rapid evolution of women’s

football (Emmonds et al., 2019; FIFA, 2019), and as

highlighted by others (Nassis et al., 2021; Ruiz-Rios

et al., 2024), a comprehensive methodological

consensus is urgently needed for the implementation

of on-field MCST best practices integrating load-

sensitive metrics as well as kinetic and kinematic

variables during jump- and sprint-tasks; according to

the evolution that the female football is suffering.

Future research must prioritise prospective

longitudinal designs that concurrently track

standardised MCST outcomes and injury incidence,

Injury Risk Assessment in Women’s Football: Are We on the Right Path to Reduce Injury Risk? A Preliminary Systematic Scoping Review

253

enabling the development of validated predictive

algorithms.

REFERENCES

Alexiou, H., & Coutts, A. (2008). A Comparison of

Methods Used for Quantifying Internal Training Load

in Women Soccer Players.

Journals.Humankinetics.Com, 3, 320–330.

http://journals.humankinetics.com/ijspp-back-

issues/ijsppvolume3issue3september/acomparisonofm

ethodsusedforquantifyinginternaltrainingloadinwomen

soccerplayers

Álvarez-Zafra, M., Yanci, J., García-Tabar, I., Bikandi, E.,

Etxaleku, S., Izquierdo, M., Krosshaug, T., Fernandez-

Lasa, U., & Setuain, I. (2021). Functional and

Anthropometrical Screening Test among High

Performance Female Football Players: A Descriptive

Study with Injury Incidence Analysis, the Basque

Female Football Cohort (BFFC) Study. International

Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,

18(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010658

Benjamin, C. L., Hosokawa, Y., Curtis, R. M., Schaefer, D.

A., Bergin, R. T., Abegg, M. R., & Casa, D. J. (2020).

Environmental Conditions, Preseason Fitness Levels,

and Game Workload: Analysis of a Female NCAA DI

National Championship Soccer Season. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(4), 988–994.

https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003535

Brumitt, J., Heiderscheit, B., Manske, R., Niemuth, P.,

Mattocks, A., & Rauh, M. J. (2018). Preseason

Functional Test Scores Are Associated With Future

Sports Injury in Female Collegiate Athletes. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(6), 1692–

1701. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002243

Chiaia, T. A., Maschi, R. A., Stuhr, R. M., Rogers, J. R.,

Sheridan, M. A., Callahan, L. R., & Hannafin, J. A.

(2009). A musculoskeletal profile of elite female soccer

players. HSS Journal, 5(2), 186–195.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-009-9108-9

Cooke, R., Rushton, A., Martin, J., Herrington, L., &

Heneghan, N. R. (2025). Lower extremity functional

performance tests and their measurement properties in

athletes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BMJ Open, 11, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-

2020-042975

Emmonds, S., Nicholson, G., Begg, C., Jones, B., & Bissas,

A. (2019). Importance of Physical Qualities for Speed

and Change of Direction Ability in Elite Female Soccer

Players. JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND

CONDITIONING RESEARCH, 33(6), 1669–1677.

https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002114

FIFA. (2019). FIFA Physical Analysis of Women’s World

Cup 2019. Fifa, 134, 1–168. file:///C:/Users/HP-

PC/Downloads/zijqly4oednqa5gffgaz.pdf

Gabbett, T. J. (2016). The training-injury prevention

paradox: Should athletes be training smarter and

harder? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(5), 273–

280. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788

Gonçalves, L., Clemente, F. M., Barrera, J. I., Sarmento, H.,

Praça, G. M., de Andrade, A. G. P., Figueiredo, A. J.,

Silva, R., Silva, A. F., & Carral, J. M. C. (2021).

Associations between physical status and training load

in women soccer players. International Journal of

Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19).

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910015

González, J. R., Cáceres, A., Ferrer, E., Balagué-Dobón, L.,

Escribà-Montagut, X., Sarrat-González, D., Quintás,

G., & Rodas, G. (2024). Predicting Injuries in Elite

Female Football Players With Global-Positioning-

System and Multiomics Data. International Journal of

Sports Physiology and Performance, 19(7), 661–669.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0246

Hallén, A., Tomás, R., Ekstrand, J., Bengtsson, H., Van den

Steen, E., Hägglund, M., & Waldén, M. (2024). UEFA

Women’s Elite Club Injury Study: a prospective study

on 1527 injuries over four consecutive seasons

2018/2019 to 2021/2022 reveals thigh muscle injuries

to be most common and ACL injuries most

burdensome. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 58(3),

128–136. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-

107133

Herrero-Molleda, A., Álvarez-Álvarez, M. J., Floría, P., &

García-López, J. (2023). Training Characteristics and

Competitive Demands in Women Road Cyclists: A

Systematic Review. International Journal of Sports

Physiology and Performance, 18(8), 794–804.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2023-0038

Horan, D., Blake, C., Hägglund, M., Kelly, S., Roe, M., &

Delahunt, E. (2021). Injuries in elite-level women’s

football—a two-year prospective study in the Irish

Women’s National League. Scandinavian Journal of

Medicine and Science in Sports, 32(1), 177–190.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14062

Howick, J., Chalmers, I., Glasziou, P., Greenhalgh, T.,

Heneghan, C., Liberati, A., Moschetti, I., Phillips, B.,

Thornton, H., Goddard, O., & Hodgkinson, M. (2011).

The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. Oxford Centre for

Evidence-Based Medicine.

Intxaurbe, A., Garcia-Tabar, I., Ruiz-Rios, M., Gonzalez,

A., & Setuain, I. (2025). Analysis of multicomponent

screening and physical performance tests during four

preseasons in a semi-professional female football team.

“The Basque Female Football Cohort (BFFC) study”.

In A. Los Arcos, I. Echeverria, A. Gonzalez-Artetxe, &

R. Martínez-Santos (Eds.), Prevention and

reconditioning of injuries in football association (pp.

112–126). Dykinson.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14679/3877

Jauhiainen, S., Kauppi, J. P., Krosshaug, T., Bahr, R.,

Bartsch, J., & Äyrämö, S. (2022). Predicting ACL

Injury Using Machine Learning on Data From an

Extensive Screening Test Battery of 880 Female Elite

Athletes. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(11),

2917–2924.

https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465221112095

icSPORTS 2025 - 13th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

254

Kammoun, M. M., Trabelsi, O., Gharbi, A., Masmoudi, L.,

Ghorbel, S., Tabka, Z., & Chamari, K. (2020).

Anthropometric and physical fitness profiles of tunisian

female soccer players: Associations with field position.

Acta Gymnica, 50(3), 130–137.

https://doi.org/10.5507/ag.2020.013

Lilić, A., & Majkić, B. (2024). The Relationship Between

Functional Movement Screen Scores and Sports

Performance in Elite Women’S Soccer Players. Facta

Universitatis, Series: Physical Education and Sport,

22(1), 23–32.

https://doi.org/10.22190/fupes231113003l

López-Valenciano, A., Raya-González, J., Garcia-Gómez,

J. A., Aparicio-Sarmiento, A., Sainz de Baranda, P., De

Ste Croix, M., & Ayala, F. (2021). Injury Profile in

Women’s Football: A Systematic Review and Meta-

Analysis. Sports Medicine, 51(3), 423–442.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01401-w

McKay, A. K. A., Stellingwerff, T., Smith, E. S., Martin, D.

T., Mujika, I., Goosey-Tolfrey, V. L., Sheppard, J., &

Burke, L. M. (2022). Defining Training and

Performance Caliber: A Participant Classification

Framework. International Journal of Sports Physiology

and Performance, 17(2), 317–331.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0451

Nassis, G. P., Brito, J., Tomás, R., Heiner-Møller, K.,

Harder, P., Kryger, K. O., & Krustrup, P. (2021). Elite

women’s football: Evolution and challenges for the

years ahead. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and

Science in Sports, 32(S1), 7–11.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14094

Oja, P., Titze, S., Bauman, A., de Geus, B., Krenn, P.,

Reger-Nash, B., & Kohlberger, T. (2011). Health

benefits of cycling: A systematic review. Scandinavian

Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 21(4), 496–

509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01299.x

Östenberg, A, & Roos, H. (2000). Injury risk factors in

female European football.: A prospective study of 123

players during one season. SCANDINAVIAN

JOURNAL OF MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS,

10(5), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-

0838.2000.010005279.x

Östenberg, Anna, Roos, E. M., Ekdahl, C., & Roos, H. P.

(2000). Physical capacity in female soccer players -

Does age make a difference? Advances in

Physiotherapy, 2(1), 39–48.

https://doi.org/10.1080/140381900443427

Poehling, R. A., Tsai, M. C., Manson, S. A., Koehle, M. S.,

& Meylan, C. M. P. (2021). Physical performance

development in a female national team soccer program.

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 24(6), 597–

602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.12.009

Purdom, T. M., Levers, K. S., Giles, J., Brown, L.,

McPherson, C. S., & Howard, J. (2021). Accumulative

Competitive Season Training Stress Affects

Neuromuscular Function and Increases Injury Risk in

Uninjured D1 Female Athletes. Frontiers in Sports and

Active Living, 2

(February).

https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.610475

Ruiz-Rios, M., Setuain, I., Cadore, E. L., Izquierdo, M., &

Garcia-Tabar, I. (2024). Physical Conditioning and

Functional Injury-Screening Profile of Elite Female

Soccer Players: A Systematic Review. International

Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 19(12),

1–12. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2023-0463

Thomas, B. H., Ciliska, D., Dobbins, M., & Micucci, S.

(2004). A process for systematically reviewing the

literature: Providing the research evidence for public

health nursing interventions. Worldviews on Evidence-

Based Nursing, 1(3), 176–184.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x

Toro-Roman, V., Grijota, F. J., Munoz, D., Maynar-

Marino, M., Clemente-Gil, S., & Robles-Gil, M. C.

(2023). Anthropometry, Body Composition, and

Physical Fitness in Semi-Professional Soccer Players:

Differences between Sexes and Playing Position.

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 13(3).

https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031249

Toro-Román, V., Grijota, F. J., Muñoz, D., Maynar-

Mariño, M., Clemente-Gil, S., & Robles-Gil, M. C.

(2023). Anthropometry, Body Composition, and

Physical Fitness in Semi-Professional Soccer Players:

Differences between Sexes and Playing Position.

Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 13(3).

https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031249

Injury Risk Assessment in Women’s Football: Are We on the Right Path to Reduce Injury Risk? A Preliminary Systematic Scoping Review

255