Injuries in Runners

Wen, Dennis Y.; Puffer, James C.; Schmalzried, Thomas P.

doi:10.1097/00042752-199807000-00005

Cited by 106 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The incidence rate found in this study is comparable with the incidence rates found in other studies (Nicholl & Williams, 1982a; Maughan & Miller, 1983; Jakobsen et al, 1989). The knee and calf were found to be the most predominant sites of injuries, which have also been reported in several other studies (Maughan & Miller, 1983; Bovens et al, 1989; Walter et al, 1989; Satterthwaite et al, 1996; Wen et al, 1998; Taunton et al, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…As frequently seen in studies in the 1980s, the methodological quality of these studies is quite low, especially with respect to the statistical analysis. Only one more recent study of Wen et al (1998), which studied the possibility of alignment as being a risk factor for running injuries, determined the possible risk factors independently from the injury and additionally applied a multivariate analysis. In order to enhance the prevention of running injuries, it is of interest to enlarge the knowledge concerning potential risk factors, especially modifiable risk factors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk factors for lower extremity injuries among male marathon runners

Middelkoop

Kolkman

Ochten

et al. 2008

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for lower extremity injuries in male marathon runners. A random sample of 1500 recreational male marathon runners was drawn. Possible risk factors were obtained from a baseline questionnaire 1 month before the start of the marathon. Information on injuries sustained shortly before or during the marathon was obtained using a post-race questionnaire. Of the 694 male runners who responded to the baseline and post-race questionnaire, 28% suffered a self-reported running injury on the lower extremities in the month before or during the marathon run. More than six times race participation in the previous 12 months [odds ratio (OR) 1.66; confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.56], a history of running injuries (OR 2.62; CI 1.82-3.78), high education level (OR 0.73; CI 0.51-1.04) and daily smoking (OR 0.23; CI 0.05-1.01) were associated with the occurrence of lower extremity injuries. Among the modifiable risk factor studies, a training distance <40 km a week is a strong protective factor of future calf injuries, and regular interval training is a strong protective factor for knee injuries. Other training characteristics appear to have little or no effect on future injuries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for lower extremity injuries among male marathon runners

Middelkoop

Kolkman

Ochten

et al. 2008

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2, a summary of the results in different types of runners is presented. The healthy participant effect may play a role when grouping novice versus recreational runners [23]. In novice runners, the five studies are heterogeneous since the estimates reported by three of the studies [11, 20, 24] range from 30.1 to 33 and are significantly higher than those reported by the two remaining studies [25, 26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of agreement in the way exposure time was calculated was another challenge. In some studies [11, 14, 15, 19, 23–25, 28], exposure time was calculated from the time a participant started the running programme until the time they reported a running-related injury (injured runners) or until the end of the programme (non-injured runners). This way of calculating exposure time was ideal due to that fact that the same runner could only contribute exposure time as long as he had not been injured.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mean regularity of running c in the last 12 months = 9.4–10.8Healthy participants above 18 years old with any level of fitnessA physical pain or complaint located at the lower limbs or lower back region, sustained during or as a result of running practice and impeding planned running activity for at least 1 day Theisen et al [15], LuxembourgRandomised controlled trial (5 months)247 Recreational runnersHealthy and uninjured leisure-time runners, aged above 18 years. Participants having more than 6 accumulated months of regular training b Any first-time pain sustained during or as a result of running practice and impeding normal running activity for at least 1 day Van Mechelen et al [28], The NetherlandsRandomised controlled trial (16 weeks)421 Recreational runners running at least 10 km/week all year-roundHealthy, no current injury, not home from work at sick leave, not performing sport as a part of their professionAny injury that occurred as a result of running and caused one or more of the following: (1) the subject had to stop running, (2) the subject could not run on the next occasion, (3) the subject could not go to work the next day, (4) the subject needed medical attention, or (5) the subject suffered from pain or stiffness during 10 subsequent days while running Wen et al [23], USAProspective cohort study (32 weeks)MH group:108 recreational runners previously running a mean of 24.94 km/week b . However 8.3 % of these were novice runners with no running experienceMembers of a running group with the purpose to prepare its members to run a marathonAnswering yes to having had “injury or pain” to an anatomic part; answering yes to having had to stop training, slow pace, stop intervals, or otherwise having had to modify training; and a “gradual,” versus “immediate”, onset of the injury or a self-reported diagnosis that is generally considered an overuse injuryUltra marathon runners Krabak et al [21], USAProspective cohort study (7 days)396 Experienced runners who have completed marathon or ultraendurance eventsAge range 18–64 yearsA disability sustained by a study participant during the race, resulting in a medical encounter by the medical staffTrack and field athletes Bennell et al [22], AustraliaProspective cohort study (12 months)95 Competitive track and field athletes (throwers and walkers excluded)Age range 17–26 years.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incidence of Running-Related Injuries Per 1000 h of running in Different Types of Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNo systematic review has identified the incidence of running-related injuries per 1000 h of running in different types of runners.ObjectiveThe purpose of the present review was to systematically search the literature for the incidence of running-related injuries per 1000 h of running in different types of runners, and to include the data in meta-analyses.Data SourcesA search of the PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and Web of Science databases was conducted.Study SelectionTitles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened by two blinded reviewers to identify prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials reporting the incidence of running-related injuries in novice runners, recreational runners, ultra-marathon runners, and track and field athletes.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsData were extracted from all studies and comprised for further analysis. An adapted scale was applied to assess the risk of bias.ResultsAfter screening 815 abstracts, 13 original articles were included in the main analysis. Running-related injuries per 1000 h of running ranged from a minimum of 2.5 in a study of long-distance track and field athletes to a maximum of 33.0 in a study of novice runners. The meta-analyses revealed a weighted injury incidence of 17.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 16.7–19.1) in novice runners and 7.7 (95 % CI 6.9–8.7) in recreational runners.LimitationsHeterogeneity in definitions of injury, definition of type of runner, and outcome measures in the included full-text articles challenged comparison across studies.ConclusionNovice runners seem to face a significantly greater risk of injury per 1000 h of running than recreational runners.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0333-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults

Relph

Greaves

Armstrong

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLower-limb running injuries are common. Running shoes have been proposed as one means of reducing injury risk. However, there is uncertainty as to how e ective running shoes are for the prevention of injury. It is also unclear how the e ects of di erent characteristics of running shoes prevent injury. ObjectivesTo assess the e ects (benefits and harms) of running shoes for preventing lower-limb running injuries in adult runners. Search methodsWe searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus plus trial registers WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was June 2021. Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving runners or military personnel in basic training that either compared a) a running shoe with a non-running shoe; b) di erent types of running shoes (minimalist, neutral/cushioned, motion control, stability, so midsole, hard midsole); or c) footwear recommended and selected on foot posture versus footwear not recommended and not selected on foot posture for preventing lower-limb running injuries. Our primary outcomes were number of people sustaining a lowerlimb running injury and number of lower-limb running injuries. Our secondary outcomes were number of runners who failed to return to running or their previous level of running, runner satisfaction with footwear, adverse events other than musculoskeletal injuries, and number of runners requiring hospital admission or surgery, or both, for musculoskeletal injury or adverse event. Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the included evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology. Main resultsWe included 12 trials in the analysis which included a total of 11,240 participants, in trials that lasted from 6 to 26 weeks and were carried out in North America, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Most of the evidence was low or very low certainty as it was not possible to blind runners to their allocated running shoe, there was variation in the definition of an injury and characteristics of footwear, and there were too few studies for most comparisons.

show abstract

Injuries in Runners

Cited by 106 publications

References 0 publications

Risk factors for lower extremity injuries among male marathon runners

Risk factors for lower extremity injuries among male marathon runners

Incidence of Running-Related Injuries Per 1000 h of running in Different Types of Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About