Orthopedics · Medical Literature
Virtual reality-assisted neuromuscular training effects on agility performance and injury prevention in basketball athletes: a controlled laboratory experiment.
Abstract
To examine the effectiveness of virtual reality-assisted neuromuscular training interventions on agility performance and injury prevention indicators in basketball athletes compared to conventional training approaches. A 12-week controlled laboratory experiment was conducted with 70 university-level basketball athletes (age 20.95 ± 1.5 years) randomly allocated to VR-assisted neuromuscular training (n = 35) or conventional training control groups (n = 35). Comprehensive assessments included agility tests (T-test, 5-10-5 shuttle), functional movement screening, biomechanical analysis, and neuromuscular function parameters measured at baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention. The VR training group demonstrated 7-10% greater pre-to-post improvements in agility performance compared with the control group across multiple agility measures (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.89-1.34). Neuromuscular function parameters showed 15-30% greater pre-to-post improvements in the VR group relative to controls, including enhanced dynamic balance (pre-VR: 2.34 ± 0.41, post-VR: 1.67 ± 0.28; pre-control: 2.31 ± 0.38, post-control: 2.02 ± 0.35; between-group difference: - 0.35, 95% CI [- 0.52, - 0.18], effect size = 1.24, p < 0.001), improved joint position sense (23.4 vs. 11.8% improvement, 95% CI for difference [8.2%, 15.0%], p = 0.002), reduced dynamic knee valgus angles (18.7 vs. 8.2% reduction, 95% CI for difference [6.1%, 14.9%], p < 0.001), and increased reactive strength index (27.2 vs. 12.3% increase, 95% CI for difference [9.5%, 20.3%], p < 0.001). Movement quality scores and biomechanical injury risk markers consistently favored the VR intervention. Virtual reality-assisted neuromuscular training yields superior improvements in both agility performance and biomechanical injury risk markers compared to conventional training approaches in basketball athletes, supporting its integration into comprehensive athletic development programs.
Clinical relevance
Does a 12-week virtual reality-assisted neuromuscular training program produce greater improvements in agility performance and injury-prevention indicators compared to conventional training in university-level basketball athletes? __SNAPSHOT__ {"studyDesign":"Controlled laboratory experiment with random group allocation (described as a randomized controlled laboratory experiment; blinding of participants or assessors not reported)","setting":"University laboratory setting; country not reported","sampleSize":"n=70 (VR-assisted neuromuscular training: n=35; conventional training control: n=35)","population":"University-level basketball athletes, mean age 20.95 ± 1.5 years; additional eligibility criteria (e.g., injury history, sex distribution, competitive level) not reported in abstract","intervention":"12-week VR-assisted neuromuscular training program; specific VR platform, session frequency, duration per session, and neuromuscular training components not detailed in abstract","comparator":"Conventional training program; specific content, volume, and frequency not described in abstract","primaryOutcome":"Agility performance (T-test, 5-10-5 shuttle test) and neuromuscular function parameters (including dynamic balance, functional movement screening, and biomechanical indices); primary vs. secondary endpoint hierarchy not explicitly designated in abstract","followUp":"12 weeks (assessments at baseline, mid-intervention [6 weeks], and post-intervention [12 weeks]); no post-intervention follow-up period reported","fundingSource":"Not reported"}
Key findings
The VR training group demonstrated 7–10% greater pre-to-post improvements in agility performance compared with the conventional training control group across multiple agility measures (p<0.001; Cohen's d=0.89–1.34, indicating large effect sizes). Neuromuscular function parameters showed 15–30% greater pre-to-post improvements in the VR group relative to controls. Dynamic balance improved from a pre-intervention score of 2.34 ± 0.41 to 1.67 ± 0.28 in the VR group (post-pre difference = −0.67 [calculated]; direction of scale — lower = better — not explicitly confirmed in abstract). The absolute change in dynamic balance in the control group, between-group difference with confidence interval, and the full dataset for remaining neuromuscular and biomechanical parameters were not reported in the available abstract (abstract appears truncated). No adverse events or injury data during the intervention period were reported in the abstract. NNT/NNH cannot be calculated from the reported data.
Practice implications
This study suggests that VR-assisted neuromuscular training may confer additional benefits over conventional training for agility and neuromuscular function in young, university-level basketball athletes over a 12-week period. The large effect sizes (Cohen's d 0.89–1.34) across agility measures are noteworthy; however, clinical importance must be evaluated against minimally important differences on sport-specific performance benchmarks, which are not discussed. Critically, the abstract is truncated, and complete results for injury-prevention indicators, biomechanical outcomes, and functional movement screening are unavailable for review — a substantial interpretive limitation. The study is further constrained by its laboratory setting and a homogeneous, young, university-level cohort, limiting generalizability to elite, youth, recreational, or older athletic populations. The specific VR platform and neuromuscular training content are not described, which prevents reproducibility or clinical translation of the intervention. Blinding status is not reported, raising risk of performance and detection bias. No post-intervention follow-up was conducted, so durability of observed gains is unknown. Whether these performance metric improvements translate to actual on-court injury rate reductions — the clinically meaningful endpoint — is not established by this study design. __LIMITATIONS__ Abstract is truncated; complete results for injury prevention indicators, biomechanical analysis, and functional movement screening outcomes are unavailable for evaluation.,Blinding of participants, trainers, or outcome assessors not reported, introducing risk of performance and detection bias.,Small sample size (n=70 total; n=35 per arm) may be underpowered for detection of less common adverse events or subgroup effects; formal sample size justification not reported in abstract.,No post-intervention follow-up period; durability and decay of training adaptations cannot be assessed.,Population limited to young (mean age ~21 years) university-level athletes; findings may not generalize to elite professionals, youth, female athletes (sex distribution not reported), or older or recreational populations.,VR platform, session frequency, session duration, and specific neuromuscular training components are not described in the abstract, precluding reproducibility or clinical implementation.,Laboratory setting may not reflect real-world training environments, limiting external validity.,Injury prevention indicators are reported as surrogate biomechanical and neuromuscular endpoints, not actual injury incidence rates; the link between improved performance metrics and reduced injury rates is inferential and not directly tested.,Funding source not reported; potential conflicts of interest cannot be assessed.,The endpoint hierarchy (primary vs. secondary outcomes) is not clearly designated, raising concerns about multiplicity and selective reporting. __BOTTOM_LINE_CATEGORY__ promising_but_preliminary __BOTTOM_LINE__ In a 12-week controlled laboratory experiment with 70 university-level basketball athletes, VR-assisted neuromuscular training produced statistically significant and large-effect-size improvements in agility and neuromuscular function compared to conventional training; however, the abstract is truncated and full results are unavailable for review. The VR platform and training content are not described, limiting reproducibility, and no post-intervention follow-up was conducted. These findings are preliminary and hypothesis-generating; practice change is not warranted until adequately powered, fully reported trials with active injury-incidence endpoints and longer follow-up are available.