Search

Understanding injury severity is essential to inform injury prevention practice. The aims of this scoping review were to investigate how running‐related injury (RRI) severity is measured, compare how it differs across studies, and examine whether it influences study outcomes (i.e., injury rates and risk factor identification). This scoping review was prospectively registered with Open Science Framework. A systematic electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and December 2023, investigated RRIs in adult running populations, and included a measure of injury severity. Results were extracted and collated. Sixty‐six studies were included. Two predominant primary criteria are used to define injury severity: the extent of the effect on running and/or the extent of the physical description. When secondary definition criteria are considered, 13 variations of injury severity measurement are used. Two approaches are used to grade injury severity: a categorization approach or a continuous numerical scale. Overall, the measurement of RRI severity is relatively inconsistent across studies. Less than half of studies report incidence rates per level of injury severity, while none report specific risk factors across levels, making it difficult to determine if the approach to measuring injury severity influences these study outcomes. This lack of information is possibly contributing to inconsistent rates of RRIs reported, and the lack of clarity on risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inconsistent and restricted definitions of injury have contributed to limitations in determining injury rates and identifying risk factors for running‐related injuries (RRIs). The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the definitions and surveillance methods of RRIs. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and June 2023 which investigated RRIs in adult running populations, providing a definition for a general RRI. Results were extracted and collated. 204 articles were included. Three primary criteria were used to define RRIs: physical description, effect on training and medical intervention, while three secondary criteria are also associated with definitions: cause/onset of injury, location, and social consequences. Further descriptors and sub‐descriptors form these criteria. The use of Boolean operators resulted in nine variations in definitions. Inconsistency is evident among definitions of RRIs. Injury definitions seem to be important for two main reasons: firstly, determining accurate injury rates, and secondly, in research examining risk factors. For the latter, definitions seem to be very limited, only capturing severe injuries and failing to recognise the full development process of RRIs, precluding the identification of conclusive risk factors. A potential two‐approach solution is the initial use of a broad definition acting as a gatekeeper for identifying any potential injury, and follow‐up with an extensive surveillance tool to capture the specific consequences of the varying severity of RRIs. Highlights: There is a clear inconsistency among definitions of what constitutes a running‐related injury (RRI), with frequent use of Boolean operators, ranging criteria and descriptors, and varying terminology and thresholds within these criteria and descriptors.The appropriateness of injury definitions and surveillance methods must be considered, with a question of whether they are capable of capturing the entire injury development process.To better understand RRIs and identify conclusive risk factors, we must use consistent, reliable and accurate methods of defining and capturing them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A critical step in understanding and preventing running-related injuries (RRIs) is appropriately defining RRIs. Current definitions of RRIs may not represent the full process of injury development, failing to capture lower levels of injury that many athletes continue to train through. Understanding runners' description and management of the injury development process may allow for a more appropriate examination of all levels of injury. This study aimed to examine recreational runners' description and management of the injury development process. Methods: A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Seven semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 18) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were reflexively thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding. Multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed. Results: Runners describe injury on a nine-level continuum, ranging from injury-free to career-ending injury. There are lower and higher levels of injury. Each level of injury is described across four categories of descriptors; physical description, outcome (effect on running and daily life), psychological description, and management. Conclusion: The Running Injury Continuum is a tool that can be used for injury surveillance (for healthcare professionals and researchers) and for research investigating RRI risk factors. Healthcare professionals, researchers and coaches must ensure they monitor the development of all levels of RRIs, across all categories of descriptors. Runners need to be educated regarding appropriate self-management strategies for lower level injuries, with access to evidence-based information being a critical management tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Given the high incidence and heavy burden of running related injuries, large-scale, prospective multifactorial investigations examining potential risk factors are warranted. This study aimed to identify factors associated with running related injuries and to evaluate their potential in injury screening. Study design: Prospective cohort study. Materials and methods: Two hundred and seventy-four recreational runners were recruited. Clinical measures (strength, range of motion, foot position), injury and training history (via questionnaire), impact loading (via accelerometery) and running technique measures were collected at baseline. Runners were tracked for injury for one year via fortnightly check-ins. A binary logistic regression, (injury versus no injury), was performed for each variable univariably, and then adjusting for age, sex and mileage. A multivariable regression was also performed to evaluate the model's discriminative ability. Results: Of the 225 runners included in the final analysis 52% experienced a running related injury. Injury history in the past year, less navicular drop, and measures of running technique (knee, hip, and pelvis kinematics) were associated with increased odds of injury (p <.05). The multivariable logistic regression model was statistically significant, χ2(11) = 56.45, p <.001, correctly classifying 74% of cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 76%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.79 (CI95% = 0.73–0.85), demonstrating acceptable discriminative ability. Conclusions: This study found a number of clinical and running technique factors to be associated with prospective running related injuries among recreational runners. With the exception of injury history, the factors identified as being significantly associated with injury may be modifiable and therefore, could form the basis of interventions. Range of motion, spatiotemporal parameters and strength measures were not associated with injury and thus their utilisation in injury prevention practices should be reconsidered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Running-related injuries (RRIs) are a prevalent issue for runners, with several factors proposed to be causative. The majority of studies to date are limited by retrospective study design, small sample sizes and seem to focus on individual risk factors in isolation. This study aims to investigate the multifactorial contribution of risk factors to prospective RRIs. Methods: Recreational runners (n = 258) participated in the study, where injury history and training practices, impact acceleration, and running kinematics were assessed at a baseline testing session. Prospective injuries were tracked for one year. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression was performed in the analysis. Results: A total of 51% of runners sustained a prospective injury, with the calf most commonly affected. Univariate analysis found previous history of injury < 1 year ago, training for a marathon, frequent changing of shoes (every 0–3 months), and running technique (non-rearfoot strike pattern, less knee valgus, greater knee rotation) to be significantly associated with injury. The multivariate analysis revealed previous injury, training for a marathon, less knee valgus, and greater thorax drop to the contralateral side to be risk factors for injury. Conclusion: This study found several factors to be potentially causative of injury. With the omission of previous injury history, the risk factors (footwear, marathon training and running kinematics) identified in this study may be easily modifiable, and therefore could inform injury prevention strategies. This is the first study to find foot strike pattern and trunk kinematics to relate to prospective injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Understanding the perceived efficacy and ease of use of technologies will influence initial adoption and sustained utilization. The objectives of this study were to determine the metrics deemed important by runners for monitoring running-related injury (RRI) risk, and identify the facilitators and barriers to their use of injury focused wearable technologies. Methods: A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Nine semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 14) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding, and multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed. Results: Excessive loading and inadequate recovery were deemed the most important risk factors to monitor for RRI risk. Other important factors included training activities, injury status and history, and running technique. The location and method of attachment of a wearable device, the design of a smartphone application, and receiving useful injury-related information will affect recreational runners' adoption of injury focused technologies. Conclusions: Overtraining, training-related and individual-related risk factors are essential metrics that need to be monitored for RRI risk. RRI apps should include the metrics deemed important by runners, once there is supporting evidence-based research. The difficulty and/or ease of use of a device, and receiving useful feedback will influence the adoption of injury focused running technologies. There is a clear willingness from recreational runners to adopt injury focused wearable technologies whilst running. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It has been suggested that foot strike technique (FST) at initial contact is related to running-related injuries (RRIs). Purpose: To explore the relationship between FST and RRIs. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Included were studies published in the English language that explored the relationship between FST and RRIs between January 1960 and November 2020. Results were extracted and collated. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was applied to synthesize the quality of evidence. Results: We reviewed 13 studies exploring the relationship between FST and RRIs. Of these, 6 studies reported FST categorically (foot strike pattern [FSP]), and 7 reported continuous measures (foot contact angle, ankle flexion angle, and strike index). Three of the 6 studies looking at categorical FSP found rearfoot strikers have a significantly greater retrospective injury rate than do non– rearfoot strikers, with 1 other study noting a greater risk associated with midfoot and forefoot strike. Regarding the continuous measures of FST, only 1 of the 7 studies reported a significant relationship with RRIs. Conclusion: There was low evidence to suggest a relationship between FST (or its subcategories of categorical FSP and continuous measures) and RRIs. While two-thirds of the categorical studies found a relationship between FSP and RRIs, these studies were very low quality, with limitations such as retrospective study design, low participant numbers, and poor FSP assessment methods. More large-scale prospective studies are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although lower extremity muscle strength, joint motion, and functional foot alignment are commonly used, time-efficient clinical measures that have been proposed as risk factors for running-related injuries, it is unclear if these factors can distinguish injury resistance in runners. Purpose: This study compares clinical measures, with consideration of sex, between recently injured runners (3 months to 1 yr prior), those with a high level of injury resistance who have been uninjured for at least 2 yr, and never-injured runners. Methods: Averaged bilateral values and between-limb symmetry angles of lower limb isometric muscle strength, joint motion, navicular drop, and foot posture index (FPI) were assessed in a cohort of recreational runners, and their injury history was recorded. Differences in clinical measures between injury groupings were examined, with consideration of sex. Results: Of the 223 runners tested, 116 had been recently injured, 61 had been injured >2 yr ago and were deemed to have acquired reinjury resistance, and 46 were never injured. Plantarflexion was greater in both recently injured (P = 0.001) and acquired reinjury resistance runners (P = 0.001) compared with never-injured runners. Recently injured runners displayed higher hip abduction strength compared with never-injured runners (P = 0.019, η² = 0.038, small effect size). There were no statistically significant differences in the remaining measures between the injury groupings. With the exception of FPI, there was no interaction between sex and injury grouping for any of the measures. Conclusion: Commonly used clinical measures of strength, joint motion, and functional foot alignment were not superior in injury-resistant runners compared with recently injured runners, questioning their relevance in identifying future injury resistance of runners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]