Despite advances in sports medicine, muscle injuries remain a major challenge in elite sport because they continue to contribute substantially to time loss, performance disruption, and financial cost for clubs and athletes. Although these injuries are common, there is still inconsistency in how they are described, graded, and classified across clinical and performance settings. This lack of consistency can make communication more difficult between doctors, physiotherapists, strength and conditioning coaches, athletes, and technical staff, particularly when decisions around prognosis, rehabilitation, and return to sport must be made under pressure (Isern-Kebschull et al., 2020; Mueller-Wohlfahrt et al., 2013; Woods et al., 2004).
For this reason, accurate classification is important because it helps identify the injury location, the extent of tissue involvement, and the anatomical structures affected. A more precise classification system can therefore support prognosis, guide rehabilitation planning, and improve return-to-sport decision-making within multidisciplinary teams. This is especially relevant in elite sport, where small differences in tissue involvement may influence time loss, loading tolerance, and the progression of rehabilitation (Isern-Kebschull et al., 2020; Paton et al., 2023; Pollock et al., 2014).
The British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification provides a clinically useful framework because it combines MRI-based injury severity with anatomical location. Instead of relying only on broad descriptions such as mild, moderate, or severe, BAMIC grades injuries from 0 to 4 and adds the suffix a, b, or c to indicate whether the injury is myofascial, musculotendinous, or intratendinous. This distinction is important because two injuries with similar severity may have different rehabilitation implications depending on whether the fascia, muscle-tendon junction, or tendon is involved (Pollock et al., 2014).
Tendon involvement is particularly relevant because connective tissue disruption may influence prognosis, loading tolerance, and the speed at which rehabilitation can safely progress. Therefore, BAMIC gives medical and performance teams a clearer shared language for describing injury severity and considering how the injured tissue may respond to rehabilitation. In this way, the classification can be useful not only for diagnosis, but also for communication and early rehabilitation planning (Isern-Kebschull et al., 2020; Paton et al., 2023; Pollock et al., 2014).
However, the value of classification depends on how it is used within the wider rehabilitation process. Although MRI-based classification can support prognosis, it should not be treated as a fixed return-to-sport timeline. Research in professional football found an association between BAMIC grade and return-to-play duration, but the relationship was not strong enough to use classification as the only return-to-play criterion. This means that classification can inform decision-making, but it cannot replace clinical assessment, functional testing, athlete confidence, or sport-specific performance markers (Tears et al., 2022).
A useful example of this broader approach can be seen in hamstring injury rehabilitation, where return-to-sport decisions often require more than imaging or diagnosis alone. Erickson and Sherry proposed a return-to-sport algorithm that uses clinical and functional criteria, including tenderness to palpation, strength testing, the H-test, single-leg bridge capacity, and sport-specific movement testing. This framework (Fig.1) shows that an athlete should progress according to symptoms, strength, neuromuscular control, confidence, and sport-specific movement quality rather than classification alone (Erickson & Sherry, 2017).
Figure 1. Return-to-sport decision-making algorithm following hamstring strain injury. Adapted from Erickson and Sherry (2017).
This type of functional framework complements BAMIC because both approaches provide different but important information. BAMIC helps clinicians understand the injured tissue and likely prognosis, while functional testing helps determine whether the athlete has regained the physical capacity required for progression. For example, an athlete may present with a lower-grade injury classification but still demonstrate pain, insecurity, strength deficits, or hesitation during movement testing. This demonstrates why return-to-sport decisions should combine the original injury classification with repeated assessment of symptoms, strength, confidence, running tolerance, and sport-specific capacity (Erickson & Sherry, 2017; Paton et al., 2023; Pollock et al., 2014).
From a rehabilitation perspective, classification should guide the pathway but should not replace ongoing assessment of the athlete’s response to loading. Early rehabilitation should prioritise symptom control, protection of the injured tissue, and the gradual introduction of tolerable loading, especially when the injury involves higher-grade tissue disruption or tendon-related structures. As rehabilitation progresses, the focus should gradually move towards restoring strength, range of motion, trunk and pelvic control, confidence, and sport-specific movement capacity (Isern-Kebschull et al., 2020; Paton et al., 2023).
This progression is important because return-to-sport readiness depends not only on tissue healing, but also on the athlete’s ability to tolerate the mechanical and performance demands of their sport. Therefore, the practical value of classification lies in helping practitioners decide how cautious or aggressive the loading progression should be at different stages of rehabilitation. In this process, the athlete’s response to exercise, rather than the original MRI grade alone, should guide the speed and direction of progression (Erickson & Sherry, 2017; Paton et al., 2023; Pollock et al., 2014).
The strength and conditioning practitioner has an important role in translating the medical diagnosis into progressive performance preparation. While early rehabilitation may focus on pain, tissue tolerance, and basic movement quality, later rehabilitation must expose the athlete to the physical qualities required for competition. These qualities may include eccentric strength, hip extensor capacity, trunk control, movement efficiency, high-speed exposure, repeated effort tolerance, and confidence under fatigue. Running and sprinting exposure should also be progressed according to symptoms, capacity, and sport-specific requirements because these demands are central to many field and running-based sports (Erickson & Sherry, 2017; Paton et al., 2023; Woods et al., 2004).
Risk management should also be integrated throughout the rehabilitation process because previous injury, age, strength characteristics, and sport-specific demands may influence future injury risk. Previous hamstring injury has been identified as an important risk factor, which highlights the need to consider injury history when planning rehabilitation and return-to-sport progression. However, the evidence for some commonly discussed risk factors remains inconsistent, meaning practitioners should avoid relying on a single measure when judging readiness. This supports an individualised approach where classification, clinical presentation, injury history, functional testing, and sport demands are considered together (Freckleton & Pizzari, 2013; Paton et al., 2023; Tears et al., 2022).
A key limitation of classification systems is that they may create the impression that return to sport can be predicted by diagnosis alone. Although BAMIC can support prognosis, it should not be used as the only clearance criterion. This means that a lower-grade injury should not automatically be considered low risk, and a higher-grade injury should not be progressed only according to a fixed timeline. Return-to-sport decisions should instead be based on clinical recovery, objective testing, running exposure, sport-specific performance, and shared decision-making within the multidisciplinary team (Erickson & Sherry, 2017; Paton et al., 2023; Tears et al., 2022).
Overall, muscle injury classification is most valuable when it improves communication, prognosis, and rehabilitation planning across the medical and performance team. BAMIC provides a useful framework because it describes both injury severity and anatomical location, which helps practitioners understand the likely implications for loading and recovery. However, classification should be integrated with functional assessment, progressive loading, and sport-specific testing rather than used as a complete return-to-sport solution. For physiotherapists and strength and conditioning practitioners, the most effective use of BAMIC is to bridge diagnosis with rehabilitation progression, objective assessment, and return-to-performance planning (Erickson & Sherry, 2017; Paton et al., 2023; Pollock et al., 2014).
Dez 21, 2025 — by Rita Renda
References
Erickson, L. N., & Sherry, M. A. (2017). Rehabilitation and return to sport after hamstring strain injury. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 6(3), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2017.04.001
Freckleton, G., & Pizzari, T. (2013). Risk factors for hamstring muscle strain injury in sport: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(6), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090664
Isern-Kebschull, J., Mechó, S., Pruna, R., Kassarjian, A., Valle, X., Yanguas, X., Alomar, X., Martinez, J., Pomés, J., & Rodas, G. (2020). Sports-related lower limb muscle injuries: Pattern recognition approach and MRI review. Insights into Imaging, 11(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00912-4
Mueller-Wohlfahrt, H.-W., Haensel, L., Mithoefer, K., Ekstrand, J., English, B., McNally, S., Orchard, J., Van Dijk, C. N., Kerkhoffs, G. M., Schamasch, P., Blottner, D., Swaerd, L., Goedhart, E., & Ueblacker, P. (2013). Terminology and classification of muscle injuries in sport: The Munich consensus statement. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(6), 342–350. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091448
Paton, B. M., Read, P., Van Dyk, N., Wilson, M. G., Pollock, N., Court, N., Giakoumis, M., Head, P., Kayani, B., Kelly, S., Kerkhoffs, G. M. M. J., Moore, J., Moriarty, P., Murphy, S., Plastow, R., Stirling, B., Tulloch, L., Wood, D., & Haddad, F. (2023). London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 3: Rehabilitation, running and return to sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(5), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-105384
Pollock, N., James, S. L. J., Lee, J. C., & Chakraverty, R. (2014). British athletics muscle injury classification: A new grading system. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(18), 1347–1351. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-093302
Tears, C., Rae, G., Hide, G., Sinha, R., Franklin, J., Brand, P., Hasan, F., & Chesterton, P. (2022). The British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification grading system as a predictor of return to play following hamstrings injury in professional football players. Physical Therapy in Sport, 58, 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.08.002
Woods, C., Hawkins, R. D., Maltby, S., Hulse, M., Thomas, A., & Hodson, A. (2004). The Football Association Medical Research Programme: An audit of injuries in professional football—analysis of hamstring injuries. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2002.002352
Leave a Reply