Abstract
BackgroundThe purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate whether runners with certain biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics sustain more running-related injuries than runners with other biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics.MethodsThe study was designed as a prospective cohort with 52-weeks follow-up. A total of 224 injury-free, recreational runners were recruited from the Gothenburg Half Marathon and tested at baseline. The primary exposure variables were biomechanical and clinical/anthropometrical measures, including strength, lower extremity kinematics, joint range of motion, muscle flexibility, and trigger points. The primary outcome measure was any running-related injury diagnosed by a medical practitioner. Cumulative risk difference was used as measure of association. A shared frailty approach was used with legs as the unit of interest. A total of 448 legs were included in the analyses.ResultsThe cumulative injury incidence proportion for legs was 29.0% (95%CI = 24.0%; 34.8%). A few biomechanical and clinical/anthropometrical factors influence the number of running-related injuries sustained in recreational runners. Runners with a late timing of maximal eversion sustained 20.7% (95%CI = 1.3; 40.0) more injuries, and runners with weak abductors in relation to adductors sustained 17.3% (95%CI = 0.8; 33.7) more injuries, compared with the corresponding reference group.ConclusionsMore injuries are likely to occur in runners with late timing of maximal eversion or weak hip abductors in relation to hip adductors.
Highlights
The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate whether runners with certain biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics sustain more running-related injuries than runners with other biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics
The attempts to identify risk factors for running-related injury (RRI) in the original articles included in these systematic reviews have been extraordinary, 86 out of 89 studies used a relative measure of association instead of absolute measures of association
Participants had a median age of 41 years (interquartile range (IQR) =35–47), an average Body mass index (BMI) of 22.7 kg/m2 (SD = ±2.1), 10 years of running experience (IQR = 5.3–17), and had covered 25 km on a weekly average the previous year (IQR = 20–39)
Summary
The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate whether runners with certain biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics sustain more running-related injuries than runners with other biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics. A recent study revealed knee stiffness as a significant predictor of injury, with an odds ratio of 1.18 (Messier et al 2018). This reveals an 18% increased odds of sustaining RRI amongst those with high knee stiffness compared with those with low knee stiffness. This sounds alarming, the reader is unable to evaluate the magnitude of this value. Moving closer to a result that is suitable for runners and their coaches, researchers within the running injury thematic need to consider using absolute measures of association, such as cumulative risk difference (RD). RD allows the reader to assess if the potential differences between exposure groups are relevant with regard to the magnitude of the difference
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
