When the back of the thigh tears – Knowledge

1. Why this article?

Wednesday evening, amateur league. A sprint for a long ball, and in the same instant something lashes the back of the thigh like a whip. Two weeks later walking is pain-free again; after four weeks everything feels normal. In week five he is back on the pitch. In week six it tears in the same place – worse this time.

We tell this story often, not because our patients are impatient. We tell it because it captures the core problem of this injury exactly: the pain disappears long before the muscle can take load again. And because nobody tells you otherwise, treatment tends to stop at about the point where it should be starting.

The muscles at the back of the thigh – the «hamstrings», medically the ischiocrural muscles – are the most frequently injured muscles in sport. In elite European football they now account for 24 per cent of all injuries; over twenty-one years their share has doubled [2]. But this has long since stopped being a footballer's topic (section 3).

The occasion for this article is a 2026 publication: Aspetar Hospital in Doha, one of the largest sports medicine institutions in the world, has published its internal rehabilitation pathway for hamstring injuries and had it reviewed by 24 practitioners from international elite sport [1]. The result is probably the most detailed publicly available road map for this injury – with one important caveat that we come back to in section 9.

This article explains why this muscle group in particular is so vulnerable, what counts in the first days, why an MRI says less than most people expect, and how you can tell that you are truly ready again. The numbers in square brackets refer to the reference list at the end.

One note in advance: this article does not replace an individual examination. What your doctor determines for your injury takes precedence.

2. What the hamstrings are – and why it is these of all muscles

Three muscles make up the group: the biceps femoris on the outside, and the semitendinosus and semimembranosus on the inside. All three arise from the ischial tuberosity – the bone you sit on – and run to below the knee.

They therefore span two joints: they extend the hip and flex the knee. This dual function is both their talent and their problem. In fast running there is a moment when the hip is flexed and the knee extended at the same time – the swing leg flies forward just before the foot lands. In exactly that moment the muscle is being lengthened while braking at maximum force. It is working against its own stretch.

That is the most injury-prone situation muscle physiology has to offer. Specialists call it eccentric loading in a lengthened position. And the faster you run, the greater it becomes – not linearly, but disproportionately. This is why most hamstring injuries do not happen through fatigue on a slow steady run, but during sprinting.

The long head of the biceps femoris is affected most often, usually in the middle third of the thigh, where muscle passes into tendon.

3. How common – and who it affects

For field-based team sports, a meta-analysis of 5952 injuries from more than seven million exposure hours provides the benchmarks [3]:

• 0.81 injuries per 1000 hours of sport, corresponding to about 10 per cent of all injuries.
• 9.4 times more common in matches than in training.
• For every year of higher average age in a cohort, the rate rises by 6.4 per cent.

The last point is the most interesting, because it corrects the common picture. Hamstring injuries are not a matter for the young sprinter. An analysis of US insurance data covering 118 197 cases from 2015 to 2024 shows a mean age of 48.7 years, 49 per cent women – and a bimodal age distribution: proportionally the 15- to 19-year-olds are hit hardest, but in absolute numbers it is the 60- to 64-year-olds [4]. Over that period the measured rate rose from 11.6 to 42.8 cases per 100 000 people.

Part of that increase is certainly better recording. But the message stands: the typical person with a hamstring injury is not the professional footballer. She is in her late forties, plays tennis at the weekend, slips while hiking, or strains herself lifting a crate.

4. Two ways to tear a hamstring

The distinction sounds academic but is decisive for your prognosis.

The sprinting type. High speed, sudden pain in the middle of the thigh, sometimes an audible or palpable snap. You grab the back of your thigh and know immediately. The biceps femoris is usually involved. This injury hurts most at the start – and generally heals faster.

The stretching type. A high kick, a slide tackle, a lunge, the splits, a deep yoga stretch, a fall while water-skiing. The pain sits higher up, close to the sitting bone, and the semimembranosus is more often involved. This injury often feels less dramatic at first – and takes considerably longer. In the studies by Askling and colleagues, return times for this type were several times higher [5], [6].

So if you come to us with a «harmless pull» after a slide tackle and we tell you it may take several months, that is not pessimism. It is the difference between the two mechanisms.

5. The first days

For fresh soft-tissue injuries the mnemonic PEACE & LOVE has become established [11]. It replaced the old «RICE», for a good reason: immobilising was never the solution, it was merely the simplest advice.

The first days (PEACE): protect – for days, not weeks; elevate; avoid anti-inflammatory drugs, because inflammation is part of healing; compress; and be educated, rather than treated passively.

Then (LOVE): load as soon as pain allows; stay optimistic – fear and catastrophising measurably delay healing; promote vascularisation with movement that does not hurt; and exercise.

In practical terms, in the first week:

• Crutches only for as long as you would otherwise limp badly – and away again as soon as possible.
• Walk as much as is pain-free. Do not stay seated.
• No stretching into pain. The muscle has just torn; pulling on it does not help.
• No deep massage over the injured site in the first days.
• Light, low-pain contraction starts early – often within the first few days.

Two simple pieces of information from this phase say a surprising amount about the course ahead: how severe the pain was at the moment of injury and how many days it took until you could walk pain-free [7]. Note both – they belong in the first examination.

6. What examination achieves – and what MRI does not

This is one of the biggest misunderstandings surrounding this injury.

A study at Aspetar tested how well return to sport can be predicted. It compared physical examination by the physiotherapist – at the start and after one week – with MRI. The result: clinical examination predicted return time usefully. MRI added nothing [7].

Particularly persistent is the idea that involvement of the tendon inside the muscle automatically means a long lay-off. A study of 70 athletes found a mean difference of just nine days – 31.6 versus 22.2 days – with so much overlap that the authors explicitly describe its value for the individual athlete as limited [8]. Reinjury rates did not differ either. And a further study showed that if a follow-up MRI at return to sport still shows changes, this does not mean the return is premature – complete resolution on imaging is not necessary [9].

Classification systems such as the British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification [10] describe the injury precisely. But they describe; they do not predict.

What follows from this? Not that imaging is useless. It matters when a complete tear or a bony avulsion at the sitting bone is suspected – then surgery is on the table [21]. It matters when the course is atypical. But it is not a calendar. Repeating an MRI every three weeks tends to delay return rather than safeguard it, and creates uncertainty where repeated measurements on the body would say more.

7. Why it comes back so often

The figure that makes this injury notorious comes from elite sport: up to one in four athletes is injured again within a year – and often within the first two months after returning [1]. There are no comparably clean figures for recreational sport, but the mechanisms are the same. Anyone who has had a hamstring injury carries a several-fold increased risk of the next one [12], [32].

A study of MRI-confirmed reinjuries shows where and when this happens: at the same location and early [13]. That is neither coincidence nor bad luck. It is a sign that something was left unfinished the first time.

What exactly? Three things above all:

• The muscle is no longer fully called upon. In people with a previous hamstring injury, knee flexor strength is lower and the measurable electrical activity of the biceps femoris is reduced – on the injured side, in some cases months after treatment ended [14]. The nervous system has, in effect, downgraded the muscle.
• The muscle shortens structurally. The muscle fascicles become shorter, which limits the ability to absorb force under stretch – precisely the ability needed for sprinting.
• Load capacity was never rebuilt. The most common reason is the most mundane: treatment ended when the pain ended.

So the most important sentence in this article belongs here: being pain-free is the beginning of rehabilitation, not its end.

8. What makes rehabilitation work

8.1 Strength training – and specifically in a lengthened position

Strength is the core. But not every strength exercise does the same thing, and this is well studied.

A controlled trial compared two forms of training over ten weeks: the Nordic hamstring – slowly leaning forward from kneeling with the feet fixed – and eccentric training in a lengthened position, that is, exercises with the hip flexed such as the Romanian deadlift. Both work, but they build up different parts [15]:

• Total hamstring volume: 18 per cent increase with lengthened-state training, 11 per cent with the Nordic hamstring.
• Long head of the biceps femoris – the most frequently injured site: 19 versus 5 per cent.
• Conversely, the Nordic hamstring was superior where muscles only flex the knee without extending the hip.

The conclusion is not «the Nordic hamstring is bad», but rather: if you only do one exercise, you only train one part. A usable programme contains knee-dominant exercises (leg curls, Nordic) and hip-dominant exercises (deadlifts, bridges, hip extension) – which is how the Aspetar pathway is built [1]. Plus the neighbours: gluteus maximus and adductor magnus work alongside.

The dose, as it can be derived from the pathway and from training science: two to five sessions per week depending on phase, three to five sets, 8 to 15 repetitions in the building phase, heavier and fewer later on. At least 48 hours between demanding sessions. And always both legs.

8.2 Lengthening exercises – effective, but no rush

Two randomised trials by Carl Askling's group tested a Swedish exercise sequence that deliberately loads the muscle at length – not static stretching, but controlled movements under tension («extender», «diver», «glider»).

Among 75 footballers in the Swedish elite league, the group using this protocol returned to full team training after a mean of 28 days, the comparison group with conventional exercises after 51 days [5]. Among 56 sprinters and jumpers the figures were 49 versus 86 days [6]. Those are large differences.

An obvious follow-up question: if these exercises work so well, does starting them even earlier help? A randomised trial in 90 male athletes tested exactly that and found no difference: 23 versus 33 days to return, not statistically meaningful, and no difference in reinjury rates either [16].

That is a useful reassurance. These exercises belong in the programme – but you do not have to start on day three, and you have missed nothing if you did not.

8.3 Trunk, pelvis and movement patterns

The most striking figure in this field is twenty years old and comes from a small study – small enough that you should know the absolute numbers before quoting it.

Sherry and Best allocated athletes with a fresh hamstring injury to two programmes: on one hand static stretching with isolated strengthening of the hamstrings, on the other a programme of progressive agility work and trunk stabilisation. Within one year, 7 of 10 in the first group were injured again, compared with 1 of 13 in the second [17].

With group sizes like these, the exact figure should be treated with caution. But the direction has been confirmed many times since and has found its way into all the guidelines [22]: isolated strengthening of the injured muscle group is not enough. How the pelvis and trunk work while running co-determines how far the hamstrings are stretched. An anteriorly tilted pelvis and an overly long stride increase the tensile load – regardless of how strong the muscle is.

8.4 Running is part of the treatment, not its goal

The commonest mistake in practice: running is saved up as a reward at the end. In the Aspetar pathway it is the opposite – running starts early and in small doses, so that a base load exists at all by the time speed is added [1].

The reason lies in a twofold finding from load research: both sudden spikes in the amount of fast running and too little base load over weeks increase risk [29]. In a study of Gaelic footballers, players with a high chronic training load and regular sprint exposure had the lowest injury risk [30].

Translated: sprinting protects against sprinting injuries – if you do it regularly and progressively. Anyone who has not moved faster than jogging pace for six weeks and then chases a ball in a match has made the biggest jump of their rehabilitation unplanned and unsupervised.

A daily follow-up examination of 131 acute hamstring injuries correspondingly showed that clinical findings track closely with progress in running speed [28]. Speed is therefore itself a measurement – not just the goal.

8.5 How much pain is allowed?

A double-blind randomised trial had 43 people after acute hamstring injury train either strictly pain-free or up to their pain threshold – with an otherwise identical programme [18]. The result:

• No difference in return to sport: 15 versus 17 days.
• But: the group training to the pain threshold achieved more strength and better maintained the length of the muscle fascicles.

Some pain during exercise is therefore not harmful and even confers advantages in the very variables that matter for reinjury risk. The international consensus puts it this way: the permissible pain threshold depends on the activity – but for sprinting, being pain-free is regarded as a prerequisite [20].

As a practical rule we work with pain during exercise of up to about 3 to 4 out of 10 in the building phase, decreasing towards zero the closer it gets to speed – provided the pain settles back to baseline within 24 hours.

9. Rehabilitation in phases rather than by calendar

The Aspetar pathway divides rehabilitation into six phases, and moving between them depends not on the date but on criteria being met [1]:

• Foundation – repair and restore: low-pain basic exercises, isometric contraction, cycling.
• Reload – rebuilding strength and movement: first jogging, running drills, preparation for jumping.
• Accumulation – strength and running volume: real running begins, plus explosive work.
• Transition – high speed and sport-specific drills.
• Simulation – game situations at full intensity and volume.
• Resilience – the phase after returning, in which training continues.

Examples of the criteria: to leave the first phase, symptoms under load should be no more than 4 out of 10 and three clean repetitions of a squat, bridge, straight leg raise and heel raise should be possible. In the second phase the limit is 2 out of 10 and the strength of the injured side at least 50 per cent of the healthy one. Later the requirements rise to 80, then 95 per cent symmetry, jump tests are added, and finally over 95 per cent of personal maximum speed and two exposures at the level of the hardest passages of a match.

Of 32 invited practitioners from elite sport, 24 assessed the pathway; overall agreement was 92 per cent [1].

Now the caveat, and it matters. The publication contains no outcome data – no return times, no reinjury rates. What was measured here is the agreement of practitioners, not effectiveness. The authors state this plainly themselves: the pathway is intended to support clinical reasoning, not replace it, and is not a rigid protocol [1]. It is also written for professionals who have several hours a day available, with a laboratory, force plates and GPS data.

What remains of it for you is nonetheless a great deal – namely the principle. Criteria instead of calendar. Deciding in advance what has to be met, rather than arguing about it afterwards. And the insight that between «can jog again» and «can sprint again» lie three phases, not none. The measurements can be reproduced without a laboratory: strength compared with a handheld dynamometer, range of motion measured with an inclinometer, the number of repetitions on the single-leg elevated bridge, running speed with a simple watch.

10. When are you ready again?

There is no single test that decides this. A systematic review of the criteria in use concludes that practice is inconsistent and that in almost all studies the perception of pain ultimately governed clearance – which is too little [19]. Reinjury rates were lowest where a standardised test under stretch was used.

A workable set of criteria for everyday practice:

• No tenderness on pressure over the injured site.
• Range of motion and strength of the injured side at least 95 per cent of the healthy one – measured, not estimated, and at several angles (knee nearly extended, mid-range, hip flexed).
• Single-leg elevated bridge: at least 25 clean repetitions [33].
• Sprinting close to personal maximum speed, repeatedly, pain-free – and free of symptoms the following day.
• The sport-specific movements have been practised: decelerating, changing direction, kicking, jumping.
• You no longer hesitate. Anyone who unconsciously brakes when accelerating is not yet ready – and is put at risk by that braking itself.

The last point is regularly underestimated. Fear of the next injury is a factor in its own right, and it can be treated – best of all through graded, successful experiences of loading.

11. What does little or nothing

Platelet-rich plasma injections (PRP). The methodologically strongest study – double-blind, placebo-controlled – found no advantage for return to sport [27]. Newer summaries partly suggest a slight shortening, but rest on studies of low to moderate quality. Not something to spend money or lose time on.

Static stretching as treatment. As a stand-alone programme it performed markedly worse in the comparative study [17]. Range of motion is a goal, but it is better achieved through loading at length than through pulling.

Massage, ultrasound, electrotherapy and similar passive applications. They can be pleasant and, in individual cases, a sensible accompaniment. As the main treatment they do not replace training. More on this in our article Massage.

Clearance based on imaging. A follow-up MRI still showing changes is no reason to keep waiting [9]. Conversely, an unremarkable scan is no licence if the strength is missing.

12. Prevention: what actually works

The best-known figure comes from a meta-analysis of 8459 athletes: programmes including the Nordic hamstring exercise halve the rate of hamstring injuries [23]. That figure was later challenged on methodological grounds – a reanalysis concluded that the effect was not established, because of publication bias and heterogeneous results [24].

A current meta-analysis of 15 studies with 7465 participants brings both camps together and delivers what is really the decisive insight [25]:

• Overall 49 per cent fewer injuries through exercise-based prevention.
• With adherence of at least 75 per cent: 64 per cent fewer.
• With low adherence: no appreciable effect.

That essentially settles the debate – not in favour of one exercise, but in favour of regularity. How realistic that is, is shown by a survey of 50 professional clubs: of 150 club-seasons examined, the programme was completed in full in only 10.7 per cent [26]. If top clubs with full-time staff fail at this, it is not a question of willpower but of planning.

What a sensible prevention programme contains:

• Eccentric strength for the hamstrings, twice weekly, year-round – knee-dominant and hip-dominant [15].
• Regular sprint exposure, progressive rather than abrupt [29], [30].
• Trunk and pelvic control as well as running technique [17].
• Load management: no sudden jumps in volume or speed after breaks, holidays or illness.

You can try out how loads accumulate in our learning game Randvoll; how a tendon stores and returns energy is shown by Federkraft.

13. Two special cases that are often confused

13.1 Pain right at the sitting bone: proximal hamstring tendinopathy

A different condition, frequently misread as a «pull». Hallmarks: a deep pain exactly at the ischial tuberosity that developed gradually, is worse on sitting – especially on hard surfaces and while driving – and increases with uphill running, lunges or deep stretching [31].

Here the tendon has been overloaded over months, not torn in a single moment. Two points make the difference in treatment:

• Avoid compression. Everything that presses the tendon against the bone – deep stretches with the hip flexed, prolonged sitting, stretching «until it pulls» – makes things worse. Precisely what one intuitively does.
• Load in stages. Start with isometric holds, then heavy slow strength training, later jumping and running loads. Expect three to six months.

13.2 Bony avulsion and complete tendon rupture

In adolescents who are still growing, the tendon can tear away with a piece of bone at the sitting bone – typically when accelerating or hurdling, with immediate, very severe pain and an inability to continue. In adults there is complete avulsion of the tendon from the sitting bone, classically while water-skiing or in a fall with the knee extended and the hip flexed. Signs are extensive bruising across the whole back of the thigh, a palpable dent and marked loss of strength.

These are the cases in which imaging is needed promptly and surgery is up for discussion – the international consensus names clear criteria [21]. Time matters here. If your injury sounds like this, you belong in a timely assessment, not in a wait-and-see home programme.

14. A realistic timeline

Guide values for an uncomplicated sprinting-type injury. With the stretching type and with injuries close to the sitting bone, everything takes considerably longer – in some cases several times as long.

• Day 0 to 3: protect, elevate, compress, walk pain-free. No anti-inflammatory drugs as routine. No stretching.
• Week 1: low-pain contraction, range of motion within the pain-free zone, trunk and hip exercises, cycling. First measurements as a baseline.
• Weeks 1 to 3: strength training begins in small doses and is progressed; jogging and running drills are added as soon as they are pain-free.
• Weeks 3 to 6: the actual training phase. Increasingly heavy strength work, jumping exercises, rising running speed. This is where most of it is decided.
• Weeks 5 to 8: speed towards personal maximum, changes of direction, sport-specific drills. Return as soon as the criteria are met – not before.
• The first two months after returning: the most dangerous period [13]. Strength training continues, at least twice weekly.
• After that: eccentric strength twice a week as a permanent fixture. This is no longer a rehabilitation programme but your new normal.

15. Six common misunderstandings

«If it no longer hurts, it has healed.»
Strength and muscle recruitment remain measurably reduced even when the pain has gone [14]. And when it does happen again, it is typically at the same site and early after returning [13].

«An MRI tells me how long I will be out.»
Clinical examination predicts return just as well; MRI adds nothing [7]. Even tendon involvement on the scan permits no usable prediction [8].

«I have to stretch the muscle so it does not tear again.»
Static stretching as a programme performed worse than agility work with trunk stabilisation [17]. What protects is strength in a lengthened position – loading, not pulling [15].

«Sprinting is dangerous, I had better avoid it.»
Exactly the opposite: regular sprint exposure on a well-built base load lowers risk [30]. What is dangerous is the sudden jump after a long break [29].

«It must not hurt during exercise.»
Training to the pain threshold did not delay return and led to more strength and better maintenance of muscle fascicle length [18]. For sprinting speed, however, being pain-free still applies [20].

«The Nordic hamstring is the one exercise you need.»
It is effective but incomplete: at the long head of the biceps femoris – the most frequently injured site – training in a lengthened position produced a 19 per cent increase compared with 5 per cent [15]. And what is decisive is not the choice of exercise anyway, but regularity [25].

16. When to get in touch

Seek prompt medical assessment for:

• Very severe, sudden pain at the sitting bone with loss of strength, extensive bruising or a palpable dent – suspicion of complete tendon rupture or bony avulsion.
• The same picture in adolescents who are still growing.
• Numbness, pins and needles, or pain radiating into the leg – the cause may then not be the muscle.
• New calf pain with one-sided swelling, breathlessness or chest pain – suspicion of thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.
• Fever, redness, warmth.

Raise in physiotherapy:

• This is already the second or third injury at the same site.
• The pain sits exactly at the sitting bone and gets worse on sitting.
• Nothing has improved for two to three weeks.
• You are meant to return to sport, but nothing has ever been measured.
• You do not trust the leg when accelerating.
• Your programme has consisted of the same exercises at the same weight for weeks.

What to expect in our practice: a baseline assessment – tenderness and its extent, range of motion compared with the other side, strength at several joint angles, repetitions on the single-leg bridge, movement quality in the squat and hip hinge – from which a programme with defined progression criteria, a home programme for the time between appointments, and regular re-measurement. Before you go back to sport, you go back to the running track.

17. In summary

A hamstring injury is not a serious injury – and is nonetheless one of the most annoying there is. Not because it heals badly, but because it comes back so reliably when you take it to be healed.

What the evidence says about it is unusually consistent. Clinical examination leads, not the scan [7]. Loading starts early, not late [11]. Strength is built in a lengthened position, knee- and hip-dominant [15]. Trunk, pelvis and running technique are part of it [17]. Some pain during exercise is permitted, during sprinting it is not [18], [20]. Clearance follows criteria, not the calendar [1]. And afterwards the strength training does not stop – because what works only works for as long as you do it [25].

For most people that means two training sessions a week, seriously for half a year and permanently thereafter. That is the whole price of making sure week six does not end on the pitch again.

References

All Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) were individually verified against the Crossref register. The links in the reference list lead via the DOI service to the publishers' pages. Some of these are located outside Switzerland and the EU. When you click on them, your IP address is transmitted to the respective provider – this does not happen on our own site.

[1] Simpson D, Wallace S, King E, McKeever H, Whiteley R. The Aspetar Hamstring Injury Rehabilitation Pathway. JOSPT Open. 2026;4(3):340–353. https://doi.org/10.2519/josptopen.2026.0213

[2] Ekstrand J, Bengtsson H, Waldén M, Davison M, Khan KM, Hägglund M. Hamstring injury rates have increased during recent seasons and now constitute 24% of all injuries in men's professional football: the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study from 2001/02 to 2021/22. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;57(5):292–298. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-105407

[3] Maniar N, Carmichael DS, Hickey JT, et al. Incidence and prevalence of hamstring injuries in field-based team sports: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5952 injuries from over 7 million exposure hours. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;57(2):109–116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-104936

[4] Florentino SA, Sangvhi P, Adelstein JM, et al. Increased Incidence of Hamstring Injuries in the United States From 2015 to 2024 and Projected Growth Through 2030. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2025;7(6):101295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2025.101295

[5] Askling CM, Tengvar M, Thorstensson A. Acute hamstring injuries in Swedish elite football: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two rehabilitation protocols. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2013;47(15):953–959. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092165

[6] Askling CM, Tengvar M, Tarassova O, Thorstensson A. Acute hamstring injuries in Swedish elite sprinters and jumpers: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two rehabilitation protocols. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;48(7):532–539. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-093214

[7] Jacobsen P, Witvrouw E, Muxart P, Tol JL, Whiteley R. A combination of initial and follow-up physiotherapist examination predicts physician-determined time to return to play after hamstring injury, with no added value of MRI. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;50(7):431–439. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095073

[8] van der Made AD, Almusa E, Whiteley R, et al. Intramuscular tendon involvement on MRI has limited value for predicting time to return to play following acute hamstring injury. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018;52(2):83–88. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097659

[9] Vermeulen R, Almusa E, Buckens S, et al. Complete resolution of a hamstring intramuscular tendon injury on MRI is not necessary for a clinically successful return to play. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2021;55(7):397–402. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101808

[10] Pollock N, James SLJ, Lee JC, Chakraverty R. British athletics muscle injury classification: a new grading system. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;48(18):1347–1351. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-093302

[11] Dubois B, Esculier JF. Soft-tissue injuries simply need PEACE and LOVE. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;54(2):72–73. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101253

[12] de Visser HM, Reijman M, Heijboer MP, Bos PK. Risk factors of recurrent hamstring injuries: a systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2012;46(2):124–130. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090317

[13] Wangensteen A, Tol JL, Witvrouw E, et al. Hamstring Reinjuries Occur at the Same Location and Early After Return to Sport: A Descriptive Study of MRI-Confirmed Reinjuries. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;44(8):2112–2121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516646086

[14] Opar DA, Williams MD, Timmins RG, Dear NM, Shield AJ. Knee flexor strength and bicep femoris electromyographical activity is lower in previously strained hamstrings. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2013;23(3):696–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.11.004

[15] Maeo S, Balshaw TG, Nin DZ, et al. Hamstrings Hypertrophy Is Specific to the Training Exercise: Nordic Hamstring versus Lengthened State Eccentric Training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2024;56(10):1893–1905. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003490

[16] Vermeulen R, Whiteley R, van der Made AD, et al. Early versus delayed lengthening exercises for acute hamstring injury in male athletes: a randomised controlled clinical trial. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;56(14):792–800. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-103405

[17] Sherry MA, Best TM. A Comparison of 2 Rehabilitation Programs in the Treatment of Acute Hamstring Strains. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2004;34(3):116–125. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2004.34.3.116

[18] Hickey JT, Timmins RG, Maniar N, et al. Pain-Free Versus Pain-Threshold Rehabilitation Following Acute Hamstring Strain Injury: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2020;50(2):91–103. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2020.8895

[19] Hickey JT, Timmins RG, Maniar N, Williams MD, Opar DA. Criteria for Progressing Rehabilitation and Determining Return-to-Play Clearance Following Hamstring Strain Injury: A Systematic Review. Sports Medicine. 2017;47(7):1375–1387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0667-x

[20] Paton BM, Read P, van Dyk N, et al. London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 3: rehabilitation, running and return to sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;57(5):278–291. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-105384

[21] Plastow R, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Wood D, et al. London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 2: operative management. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;57(5):266–277. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-105383

[22] Martin RL, Cibulka MT, Bolgla LA, et al. Hamstring Strain Injury in Athletes: Clinical Practice Guidelines Linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2022;52(3):CPG1–CPG44. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2022.0301

[23] van Dyk N, Behan FP, Whiteley R. Including the Nordic hamstring exercise in injury prevention programmes halves the rate of hamstring injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 8459 athletes. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019;53(21):1362–1370. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100045

[24] Impellizzeri FM, McCall A, van Smeden M. Why methods matter in a meta-analysis: a reappraisal showed inconclusive injury preventive effect of Nordic hamstring exercise. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;140:111–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.007

[25] Gu J, Li Y, Wang Y, Zhang Y. Intervention components, training dose, and adherence in exercise-based prevention of hamstring strain injury in football: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Medicine. 2026;58(1):2652116. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2026.2652116

[26] Bahr R, Thorborg K, Ekstrand J. Evidence-based hamstring injury prevention is not adopted by the majority of Champions League or Norwegian Premier League football teams: the Nordic Hamstring survey. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015;49(22):1466–1471. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094826

[27] Reurink G, Goudswaard GJ, Moen MH, et al. Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Acute Muscle Injury. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;370(26):2546–2547. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1402340

[28] Whiteley R, van Dyk N, Wangensteen A, Hansen C. Clinical implications from daily physiotherapy examination of 131 acute hamstring injuries and their association with running speed and rehabilitation progression. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018;52(5):303–310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097616

[29] Duhig S, Shield AJ, Opar D, Gabbett TJ, Ferguson C, Williams M. Effect of high-speed running on hamstring strain injury risk. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;50(24):1536–1540. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095679

[30] Malone S, Roe M, Doran DA, Gabbett TJ, Collins K. High chronic training loads and exposure to bouts of maximal velocity running reduce injury risk in elite Gaelic football. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2017;20(3):250–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.005

[31] Goom TS, Malliaras P, Reiman MP, Purdam CR. Proximal Hamstring Tendinopathy: Clinical Aspects of Assessment and Management. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2016;46(6):483–493. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2016.5986

[32] Green B, Bourne MN, van Dyk N, Pizzari T. Recalibrating the risk of hamstring strain injury (HSI): a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for index and recurrent hamstring strain injury in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;54(18):1081–1088. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-100983

[33] Freckleton G, Cook J, Pizzari T. The predictive validity of a single leg bridge test for hamstring injuries in Australian Rules Football players. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;48(8):713–717. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092356