Prospective running assessments among division I cross-country athletes

Lempke, Alexandra F. DeJong; Hart, Joseph M.; Hryvniak, David; Rodu, Jordan; Hertel, Jay

doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.02.003

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three studies investigated running gait in participants with an average age over 50 years, none of which performed a comparison of gait patterns across age groups that included older adults [28][29][30]. Most of the reviewed studies (n = 82) included both male and female participants, with eight examining differences between male and female participants [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] and three of these studies finding significant differences between sexes [32,36,37]. Thirty-nine studies had male participants only, while only three studies solely examined female participants [39][40][41], seven studies did not report the sex of participants [21,[42][43][44][45][46][47] and two studies did not provide a breakdown of the sexes [26,48].…”

Section: Participant Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sixty-two articles stated that they used IMUs; however, 14 of these studies only used the accelerometer capabilities within the IMU [23,24,38,52,56,57,62,[72][73][74][75][76][77][78] and 20 studies stated they used the accelerometer and gyroscope components for the data analysis [26,33,43,49,50,54,59,61,[79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]. The remaining 27 studies either did not comment on components used [70,[91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98] or implied they used all accelerometer, gyroscope and magnetometer components for the data analysis [19-21, 28, 29, 36, 42, 99-109].…”

Section: Inertial Measurement Unitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ankle/foot kinematics n = 19 Description of ankle or foot movement in any of the three cardinal planes: sagittal, frontal, transverse planes, without consideration for forces [19,20,33,43 A measure of the force applied for a specific time and distance [34,45,47,123,124,140,142,149] Braking…”

Section: Kinematicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The force applied to the body that causes it to slow down [28,29,33,49,50,54,93] Load/loading rate n = 5 The speed at which you apply forces to the body [45,97,123,143,149] Centre of pressure…”

Section: Kinematicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Running gait assessment has traditionally been performed using subjective observation or expensive laboratory-based objective technologies, such as three-dimensional motion capture or force plates. However, recent developments in wearable devices allow for continuous monitoring and analysis of running mechanics in any environment. Objective measurement of running gait is an important (clinical) tool for injury assessment and provides measures that can be used to enhance performance. Objectives We aimed to systematically review the available literature investigating how wearable technology is being used for running gait analysis in adults. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the type of study, participants, protocol, wearable device(s), main outcomes/measures, analysis and key findings. Results A total of 131 articles were reviewed: 56 investigated the validity of wearable technology, 22 examined the reliability and 77 focused on applied use. Most studies used inertial measurement units (n = 62) [i.e. a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers in a single unit] or solely accelerometers (n = 40), with one using gyroscopes alone and 31 using pressure sensors. On average, studies used one wearable device to examine running gait. Wearable locations were distributed among the shank, shoe and waist. The mean number of participants was 26 (± 27), with an average age of 28.3 (± 7.0) years. Most studies took place indoors (n = 93), using a treadmill (n = 62), with the main aims seeking to identify running gait outcomes or investigate the effects of injury, fatigue, intrinsic factors (e.g. age, sex, morphology) or footwear on running gait outcomes. Generally, wearables were found to be valid and reliable tools for assessing running gait compared to reference standards. Conclusions This comprehensive review highlighted that most studies that have examined running gait using wearable sensors have done so with young adult recreational runners, using one inertial measurement unit sensor, with participants running on a treadmill and reporting outcomes of ground contact time, stride length, stride frequency and tibial acceleration. Future studies are required to obtain consensus regarding terminology, protocols for testing validity and the reliability of devices and suitability of gait outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration CRD42021235527.

show abstract

Section: Participant Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inertial Measurement Unitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Kinematicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Kinematicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wearable sensors allow for robust outdoor gait assessments to collect significantly more data than has historically been possible using traditional laboratory study designs (9,10). Validated sensors specific to measuring running biomechanics have been used to assess runners currently experiencing lower extremity injury symptoms and have unearthed distinct biomechanical adaptations that have not been identified through treadmill-based assessments (11,12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Running-Related Injuries Captured Using Wearable Technology during a Cross-Country Season: A Preliminary Study

Lempke¹,

Hart²,

Hryvniak³

et al. 2022

Transl J ACSM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction/PurposeRunning-related injuries are prevalent among competitive runners. In a previous prospective descriptive assessment of in situ running biomechanics in collegiate cross-country athletes, a subset of athletes developed repetitive stress lower extremity injuries during study participation. The purpose of this preliminary, observational study was to assess sensor-derived biomechanics in the several days leading up to injury (n = 8; 4 female, 4 male) compared with runners who remained healthy (n = 14; 9 female, 5 male) over a single cross-country season.MethodsWearable sensors were used to collect running biomechanics during two weekly runs, and surveys were used to capture wellness and injury. Individual z scores of biomechanical measures were assessed for runners who developed injuries and compared against healthy male and female z scores.ResultsOf the eight injuries, four were categorized as bone stress injuries (three female, one male), and four as soft tissue injuries (one female, three male). Bone injury cases had increased contact time, loading, and pronation, and decreased cadence and stride length preceding injury. Hamstring injury cases (n = 2) had increased stride length, whereas foot and ankle soft tissue injuries had increased pronation velocity and decreased shock and braking.ConclusionsThis assessment of injury cases illuminates several biomechanical patterns associated with running-related injury development. This study sets the precedent for larger-scale prospective running-related injury evaluations.

show abstract