Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24809248›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2014

What are the main risk factors for running-related injuries?

Bruno Tirotti Saragiotto, Tiê Parma Yamato, Luiz Carlos Hespanhol Junior, Michael J Rainbow, Irene S Davis, Alexandre Dias Lopes

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. TheFrontiers in physiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Bruno Tirotti SaragiottoMaster and Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, São Paulo Running Injury Group (SPRunIG), Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno, 448, São Paulo, 05077-100, Brazil, bruno.saragiotto@gmail.com.
Tiê Parma Yamato
Luiz Carlos Hespanhol Junior
Michael J Rainbow
Irene S Davis
Alexandre Dias Lopes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite several studies that have been conducted on running injuries, the risk factors for running-related injuries are still not clear in the literature.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically review prospective cohort studies that investigated the risk factors for running injuries in general. DATA SOURCES: We conducted electronic searches without restriction of language on EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2012), PUBMED (1946 to Dec 2012), CINAHL (1988 to Dec 2012) SPORTDiscus (1977 to Dec 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Centre on Health Sciences Information (1985 to Dec 2012) and Scientific Electronic Library Online (1998 to Dec 2012) databases, using subject headings, synonyms, relevant terms and variant spellings for each database. STUDY SELECTION: Only prospective cohort studies investigating the risk factors for running-related musculoskeletal injuries were included in this review. Two independent reviewers screened each article and, if they did not reach a consensus, a third reviewer decided whether or not the article should be included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsYear of publication, type of runners, sample size, definition of running-related musculoskeletal injury, baseline characteristics, reported risk factors and the statistical measurement of risk or protection association were extracted from the articles. A scale adapted by the authors evaluated the risk of bias of the articles.

resultsA total of 11 articles were considered eligible in this systematic review. A total of 4,671 pooled participants were analysed and 60 different predictive factors were investigated. The main risk factor reported was previous injury (last 12 months), reported in 5 of the 8 studies that investigated previous injuries as a risk factor. Only one article met the criteria for random selection of the sample and only six articles included a follow-up of 6 months or more. There was no association between gender and running injuries in most of the studies. LIMITATIONS: It is possible that eligible articles for this review were published in journals that were not indexed in any of the searched databases. We found a great heterogeneity of statistical methods between studies, which prevented us from performing a meta-analysis.

conclusionsThe main risk factor identified in this review was previous injury in the last 12 months, although many risk factors had been investigated in the literature. Relatively few prospective studies were identified in this review, reducing the overall ability to detect risk factors. This highlights the need for more, well designed prospective studies in order to fully appreciate the risk factors associated with running.

Indexed as

HumansMusculoskeletal SystemProspective StudiesRisk FactorsRunning

Identifiers

PMID24809248

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.