Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27107810›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016

The design of the run Clever randomized trial: running volume, -intensity and running-related injuries.

Daniel Ramskov, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen, Henrik Sørensen, Erik Parner, Martin Lind, Sten Rasmussen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02349373 (The Focus of a Running Schedule and Its Association With the Risk of Running Injuries? A Randomized Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02349373 nacompletednot on this map

The Focus of a Running Schedule and Its Association With the Risk of Running Injuries? A Randomized Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthern Orthopaedic Division, DenmarkRan2015 to 2017Enrolled839ConditionsRunning Related InjuriesArmsAn 8 week preconditioning period, 16 week training period
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development of the University of Wisconsin Running Injury and Recovery Index.The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy · 2019
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Daniel RamskovDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. daniel.joergensen@ph.au.dk.
Rasmus Oestergaard NielsenDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Henrik SørensenDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Erik ParnerDepartment of Public Health, Section for Biostatistics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Martin LindDepartment of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Sten RasmussenOrthopaedic Surgery Research Unit, Science and Innovation Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInjury incidence and prevalence in running populations have been investigated and documented in several studies. However, knowledge about injury etiology and prevention is needed. Training errors in running are modifiable risk factors and people engaged in recreational running need evidence-based running schedules to minimize the risk of injury. The existing literature on running volume and running intensity and the development of injuries show conflicting results. This may be related to previously applied study designs, methods used to quantify the performed running and the statistical analysis of the collected data. The aim of the Run Clever trial is to investigate if a focus on running intensity compared with a focus on running volume in a running schedule influences the overall injury risk differently. METHODS/

designThe Run Clever trial is a randomized trial with a 24-week follow-up. Healthy recreational runners between 18 and 65 years and with an average of 1-3 running sessions per week the past 6 months are included. Participants are randomized into two intervention groups: Running schedule-I and Schedule-V. Schedule-I emphasizes a progression in running intensity by increasing the weekly volume of running at a hard pace, while Schedule-V emphasizes a progression in running volume, by increasing the weekly overall volume. Data on the running performed is collected by GPS. Participants who sustain running-related injuries are diagnosed by a diagnostic team of physiotherapists using standardized diagnostic criteria. The members of the diagnostic team are blinded. The study design, procedures and informed consent were approved by the Ethics Committee Northern Denmark Region (N-20140069). DISCUSSION: The Run Clever trial will provide insight into possible differences in injury risk between running schedules emphasizing either running intensity or running volume. The risk of sustaining volume- and intensity-related injuries will be compared in the two intervention groups using a competing risks approach. The trial will hopefully result in a better understanding of the relationship between the running performed and possible differences in running-related injury risk and the injuries developed.

trial registrationClinical Trials NCT02349373 - January 23, 2015.

Indexed as

Physical ExertionResearch DesignSmartphoneAthletic InjuriesDenmarkFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleRunningAthletic injuriesInjury preventionLeg injuriesMusculoskeletal painRecreational runnersRunningRunning intensityRunning-related InjuriesRunning scheduleRunning volume

Identifiers

PMID27107810
PMCPMC4842282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.