Innovations and pitfalls in the use of wearable devices in the prevention and rehabilitation of running related injuries

Willy, Richard W.

doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.10.003

Cited by 100 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is considered the gold standard for a biomechanical running analysis, although considerable differences might exist between models being used to measure biomechanical variables. Increasing evidence exists to support the use of two-dimensional motion analysis [79][80][81][82] and wearables [83,84] as a valid and reliable alternative. Since both methods are less complex, less expensive, and take less time than three-dimensional motion analysis, multicenter "big data" studies could be conducted to increase statistical power.…”

Section: Methodology Of Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Risk Factors Associated with Running-Related Injuries: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Running is a popular form of physical activity with many health benefits. However, the incidence and prevalence of running-related injuries (RRIs) is high. Biomechanical factors may be related to the development of RRIs. Objective This systematic review synthesizes biomechanical risk factors related to the development of RRIs in non-injured runners. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and SPORTDiscus were searched in July 2018 for original peerreviewed prospective studies evaluating potential biomechanical factors associated with the development of RRIs. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. Due to methodological heterogeneity across studies, a narrative synthesis of findings was conducted, rather than a meta-analysis. Results Sixteen studies, including 13 of high quality and three of moderate quality, were included. A large number of biomechanical variables were evaluated, producing inconsistent evidence overall. Limited evidence indicated greater peak hip adduction in female runners developing patellofemoral pain and iliotibial band syndrome, but not for a mixed-sex population of crosscountry runners sustaining an RRI. The relationship between vertical loading rate and RRIs was inconsistent. Other kinematic, kinetic and spatiotemporal factors were only studied to a limited extent. Conclusions Current prospective evidence relating biomechanical variables to RRI risk is sparse and inconsistent, with findings largely dependent on the population and injuries being studied. Future research is needed to confirm these biomechanical risk factors and determine whether modification of these variables may assist in running injury prevention and management. Key Points Despite the common belief that biomechanical factors greatly influence running-related injury (RRI) risk, only a limited body of high-quality research, with significant heterogeneity in study populations, methodologies and outcome variables, was identified. Current prospective evidence relating biomechanical variables with the risk to sustain an RRI is inconsistent and largely dependent on the population and injuries being studied. A number of single-study findings related to kinematics, kinetics and spatiotemporal variables require confirmation via further high-quality prospective studies before clinical recommendations can be made.

show abstract

Section: Methodology Of Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Risk Factors Associated with Running-Related Injuries: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Not only has the number of runners using technology increased, but the development of systems related to running (and other sports) has received significant attention in research. Although researchers face real challenges in using technological systems to prevent running injuries [42,43], several studies focus on aspects of improving running technique and minimizing injury [44][45][46][47]. Other researchers focus more on the role of running technology in relation to the social aspects of running [48][49][50][51] and the individual motivation of runners [52,53].…”

Section: Running-related Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Different Types of Recreational Runners and How They Use Running-Related Technology

Janssen

Walravens

Thibaut

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to help professionals in the field of running and running-related technology (i.e., sports watches and smartphone applications) to address the needs of runners. It investigates the various runner types—in terms of their attitudes, interests, and opinions (AIOs) with regard to running—and studies how they differ in the technology they use. Data used in this study were drawn from the standardized online Eindhoven Running Survey 2016 (ERS2016). In total, 3723 participants completed the questionnaire. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to identify the different running types, and crosstabs obtained insights into the use of technology between different typologies. Based on the AIOs, four distinct runner types were identified: casual individual, social competitive, individual competitive, and devoted runners. Subsequently, we related the types to their use of sports watches and apps. Our results show a difference in the kinds of technology used by different runner types. Differentiation between types of runners can be useful for health professionals, policymakers involved in public health, engineers, and trainers or coaches to adapt their services to specific segments, in order to make use of the full potential of running-related systems to support runners to stay active and injury-free and contribute to a healthy lifestyle.

show abstract

“…During the LESS, a small kinematic difference (e.g., knee angle 29 • , 1-error present; knee angle 30 • , 0-error absent) can result in poor agreement between raters and between clinical LESS scores and motion capture scores. Recent technological advances have allowed the more objective quantification of human motion using wearable technology [29,30]. Inertial measurement units are able to measure linear and angular motion of individual body segments and centre of mass, and are proposed as more accurate means of identifying risky movement patterns than through visual observations [31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ‘DEEP’ Landing Error Scoring System

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is an injury-risk screening tool used in sports; but scoring is time consuming, clinician-dependent, and generally inaccessible outside of elite sports. Our aim is to evidence that LESS scores can be automated using deep-learning-based computer vision combined with machine learning and compare the accuracy of LESS predictions using different video cropping and machine learning methods. Two-dimensional videos from 320 double-leg drop-jump landings with known LESS scores were analysed in OpenPose. Videos were cropped to key frames manually (clinician) and automatically (computer vision), and 42 kinematic features were extracted. A series of 10 × 10-fold cross-validation experiments were applied on full and balanced datasets to predict LESS scores. Random forest for regression outperformed linear and dummy regression models, yielding the lowest mean absolute error (1.23) and highest correlation (r = 0.63) between manual and automated scores. Sensitivity (0.82) and specificity (0.77) were reasonable for risk categorization (high-risk LESS ≥ 5 errors). Experiments using either a balanced (versus unbalanced) dataset or manual (versus automated) cropping method did not improve predictions. Further research on the automation would enhance the strength of the agreement between clinical and automated scores beyond its current levels, enabling quasi real-time scoring.

show abstract

Innovations and pitfalls in the use of wearable devices in the prevention and rehabilitation of running related injuries

Cited by 100 publications

References 51 publications

Biomechanical Risk Factors Associated with Running-Related Injuries: A Systematic Review

Biomechanical Risk Factors Associated with Running-Related Injuries: A Systematic Review

Understanding Different Types of Recreational Runners and How They Use Running-Related Technology

The ‘DEEP’ Landing Error Scoring System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About