What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

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.

Do runners who suffer injuries have higher vertical ground reaction forces than those who remain injury-free? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Although these studies did not provide an overview of the included injury type, it is known that experienced runners report a lower proportion of knee injuries, compared with novice runners, and a higher proportion of foot injuries 2. So the study with a high proportion of knee injuries22 found smaller differences between cases and controls compared with the studies that possibly included a higher percentage of foot injures 21 33.…”

“…Overuse injuries such as medial tibial stress syndrome, patellofemoral pain syndrome, iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS), stress fractures, plantar fasciitis and Achilles tendinopathy are common among recreational and competitive runners 1 2. Many factors play a role in the aetiology of these running-related injuries.…”

The Epidemiology of Injuries Across the Weight-Training Sports

“…The ROB of the eligible studies was assessed by both authors (and where relevant the Chinese and German colleagues) independently using a checklist (Electronic Supplementary Material Table S1) developed for assessing the ROB in studies examining musculoskeletal injury [17][18][19].…”

Is There a Relationship Between Strike Pattern and Injury During Running: A Review

“…The researcher also indicated that both peak and average values of anteroposterior GRF load rates were considerably larger in the FFS running pattern. In addition, there is a significantly correlated between peak positive acceleration and the shear load rates (Johnson et al, 2016;Kluitenberg et al, 2015). The larger peak acceleration in the FFS pattern may be also related to peak forces.…”

“…Present figures report that 54 million people participate in running as a sport (Snipes & Pitts, 2015). Recently, research evidence suggests that the injury rate of runners' ranges from 3.2% for cross-country runners to 84.9% for novice runners (Kluitenberg et al, 2015). Over the last decade, with the rise in high injury risks associated with a running activity, researchers have expressed an interest in barefoot running (Hryvniak et al, 2014;Rothschild & Research, 2012).…”