The loading rate is higher in respondents with a history of stress fractures than in respondents without running injuries. Owing to the absence of prospective studies on other injury types, it is not possible to draw definite conclusions regarding their relation with loading rate.

PurposeThe general consensus that tendinopathy, at least in the chronic stage, is mainly a degenerative condition and inflammation plays a minor role has led to a shift from treatments that target inflammation towards treatment options that promote regeneration. One of these treatments is extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), a physical therapy modality that uses pressure waves to treat tendinopathy. This review was undertaken to give an overview of the literature concerning this treatment, and special attention is given to the differences between focused and radial ESWT.MethodsA narrative description of wave characteristics, generation methods and in vitro effects of ESWT is given. The literature on ESWT as a treatment for one common tendinopathy, patellar tendinopathy, was systematically reviewed.ResultsWaves that are generated for focused and radial ESWT have very different physical characteristics. It is unclear how these characteristics are related to clinical effectiveness. Studies into the biological effects of ESWT have mainly used focused shockwave therapy, showing a number of effects of shockwaves on biological tissue. The systematic review of studies into the clinical effects of ESWT for patellar tendinopathy showed conflicting evidence for its effectiveness.ConclusionPhysical characteristics of focused and radial waves differ substantially, but effect on clinical effectiveness is unclear. Whereas in vitro studies often show the effects of ESWT on tendon tissue, results of clinical studies are inconsistent. Based on the review of the literature, suggestions are given for the use of ESWT in clinical practice regarding timing and treatment parameters.Level of evidenceIV.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2009-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMany runners suffer from injuries. No information on high-risk populations is available so far though.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to systematically review injury proportions in different populations of runners and to compare injury locations between these populations.Data SourcesAn electronic search with no date restrictions was conducted up to February 2014 in the PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases. The search was limited to original articles written in English. The reference lists of the included articles were checked for potentially relevant studies.Study Eligibility CriteriaStudies were eligible when the proportion of running injuries was reported and the participants belonged to one or more homogeneous populations of runners that were clearly described. Study selection was conducted by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsDetails of the study design, population of runners, sample size, injury definition, method of injury assessment, number of injuries and injury locations were extracted from the articles. The risk of bias was assessed with a scale consisting of eight items, which was specifically developed for studies focusing on musculoskeletal complaints.ResultsA total of 86 articles were included in this review. Where possible, injury proportions were pooled for each identified population of runners, using a random-effects model. Injury proportions were affected by injury definitions and durations of follow-up. Large differences between populations existed. The number of medical-attention injuries during an event was small for most populations of runners, except for ultra-marathon runners, in which the pooled estimate was 65.6 %. Time-loss injury proportions between different populations of runners ranged from 3.2 % in cross-country runners to 84.9 % in novice runners. Overall, the proportions were highest among short-distance track runners and ultra-marathon runners.LimitationsThe results were pooled by stratification of studies according to the population, injury definition and follow-up/recall period; however, heterogeneity was high.ConclusionsLarge differences in injury proportions between different populations of runners existed. Injury proportions were affected by the duration of follow-up. A U-shaped pattern between the running distance and the time-loss injury proportion seemed to exist. Future prospective studies of injury surveillance are highly recommended to take running exposure and censoring into account.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0331-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.