Data of comparison between two methods for monitoring neuromotor recovery following post lower-limb injury rehabilitation in elite soccer players: Limb Symmetry Index versus Normative values.

This study compared two methods (Limb Symmetry Index [LSI] vs Normative Values (Norm-values)) for assessing neuromotor recovery in elite soccer players after a sport-specific rehabilitation program.Kinetic movement and muscle activation were recorded during a single-leg countermovement jump. An experimental group (EG, n=15, with various injuries) and a healthy control group (CG, n=22) performed the same tests. Comparisons were made between the injured and healthy legs in the EG (%LSI) and between the injured leg in the EG and the dominant leg in the CG (%Norm-values).This study followedthe principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964), and the national ethics committee for sports science research (CERSTAPS n°IRB00012476-2020-24-03-48) approved all methodology of this study.The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check the normality of data distribution. Repeated measures (RM) ANOVAs included the method (3-levels: NV_IL, NV_NIL <em>vs</em> LSI) as the within subject factor were used for LSIand NV for injured and non-injured leg. Tukey <em>post-hoc</em> test assessed pairwise statistical differences between method conditions. The significance threshold was set at p&lt;0.05. The effect sizes for mean values was determined by a Cohen's d (classified as trivial: &lt;0.2, small: 0.2-0.49, medium: 0.5-0.79, and large: ≥0.8). Post-rehabilitation, the LSI method showed mean kinetic values of 118%, while the Norm-Values method showed 87% for the injured leg and 98% for the non-injured leg. Combined EMG and kinetic values were 120% for LSI vs 88% for Norm-Values for the injured leg and 87% for the non-injured leg.The LSI method overestimated recovery compared to the Norm-Values method, which may be more accurate for post-injury assessment. If Norm-values are unavailable, LSI can be used with caution in interpreting results.<br>

本研究针对完成专项运动康复方案后的精英足球运动员，比较了两种评估神经运动恢复的方法：肢体对称指数（Limb Symmetry Index, LSI）与参考标准值（Normative Values, Norm-values）。研究记录了受试者在单腿反向跳跃（single-leg countermovement jump）过程中的动力学运动数据与肌肉激活信号。实验设置两组受试者：实验组（EG，n=15，存在各类运动损伤）与健康对照组（CG，n=22），两组均完成相同测试内容。比较方式分为两类：一是实验组内部对比患侧与健侧肢体的%LSI；二是将实验组患侧肢体与对照组优势腿的%Norm-values进行对比。

本研究遵循《赫尔辛基宣言（1964版）》的伦理原则，所有研究方法均获国家运动科学研究伦理委员会（CERSTAPS n°IRB00012476-2020-24-03-48）批准。

本研究采用夏皮罗-威尔克检验（Shapiro-Wilk test）验证数据分布的正态性。针对患侧与健侧肢体的LSI与Norm-values数据，采用以方法（3个水平：NV_IL、NV_NIL <em>vs</em> LSI）为组内因素的重复测量方差分析（repeated measures ANOVA, RM ANOVA）；采用图基事后检验（Tukey post-hoc test）分析不同方法间的两两统计学差异，显著性阈值设定为p<0.05。均值的效应量通过科恩d值（Cohen's d）计算得到，分类标准为：微不足道（<0.2）、小（0.2~0.49）、中等（0.5~0.79）以及大（≥0.8）。

康复训练后，LSI方法测得患侧肢体的平均动力学值为118%；而Norm-values方法测得患侧肢体平均动力学值为87%，健侧肢体为98%。针对肌电（electromyography, EMG）与动力学的联合数据，LSI方法下患侧肢体为120%，而Norm-values方法下患侧肢体为88%、健侧肢体为87%。

相较于Norm-values方法，LSI方法会高估恢复程度，而前者或许更适用于损伤后恢复评估。若无法获取参考标准值，可谨慎采用LSI方法进行结果解读。