Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23593549›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2013

Weekly running volume and risk of running-related injuries among marathon runners.

Christina Haugaard Rasmussen, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen, Martin Serup Juul, Sten Rasmussen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christina Haugaard RasmussenOrthopaedic Surgery Research Unit. Science and Innovation Center, Aalborg Hospital, Aalborg University Denmark.
Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen
Martin Serup Juul
Sten Rasmussen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledPURPOSEBACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate if the risk of injury declines with increasing weekly running volume before a marathon race.

methodsThe study was a retrospective cohort study on marathon finishers. Following a marathon, participants completed a web-based questionnaire. The outcome of interest was a self-reported running-related injury. The injury had to be severe enough to cause a reduction in distance, speed, duration or frequency of running for at least 14 days. Primary exposure was self-reported average weekly volume of running before the marathon categorized into below 30 km/week, 30 to 60 km/week, and above 60 km/week.

resultsA total of 68 of the 662 respondents sustained an injury. When adjusting for previous injury and previous marathons, the relative risk (RR) of suffering an injury rose by 2.02 [95% CI: 1.26; 3.24], p < 0.01, among runners with an average weekly training volume below 30 km/week compared with runners with an average weekly training volume of 30-60 km/week. No significant differences were found between runners exceeding 60 km/week and runners running 30-60 km/week (RR=1.13 [0.5;2.8], p=0.80).

conclusionsRunners may be advised to run a minimum of 30 km/week before a marathon to reduce their risk of running-related injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

Indexed as

marathonrisk factorsRunning‐related injuryrunning volume.

Identifiers

PMID23593549
PMCPMC3625790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.