ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2018
Study protocol of a 52-week Prospective Running INjury study in Gothenburg (SPRING).
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Respiratory Muscle Training Combinations in Amateur Runners: A Randomized Trial of Pulmonary Function, Respiratory Muscle Strength, and Exercise Capacity.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Habitual Running Style Matters: Duty Factor, and Not Stride Frequency, Relates to Loading Magnitude.Journal of human kinetics · 2024Article
- Associations between biomechanical and clinical/anthropometrical factors and running-related injuries among recreational runners: a 52-week prospective cohort study.Injury epidemiology · 2020Article
- Mental Recovery and Running-Related Injuries in Recreational Runners: The Moderating Role of Passion for Running.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Recent Versus Old Previous Injury and Its Association with Running-Related Injuries During Competition by SeRUN® Running Profiles: a Cross-sectional Study.Sports medicine - open · 2018Article
- Overuse injuries in Swedish elite athletics- a study protocol for a prospective multifactorial cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2018Article
- 'Take a Mental Break!' study: Role of mental aspects in running-related injuries using a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt is assumed that a running-related (overuse) injury occurs when a specific structure of the human body is exposed to a load that exceeds that structures' load capacity. Therefore, monitoring training load is an important key to understanding the development of a running-related injury. Additionally, other distribution, magnitude and capacity-related factors should be considered when aiming to understand the causal chain of injury development. This paper presents a study protocol for a prospective cohort study that aims to add comprehensive information on the aetiology of running-related injuries and present a new approach for investigating changes in training load with regard to running-related injuries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study focused on recreational runners, that is, runners exposed to a minimum weekly average of 15 km for at least 1 year. Participants will undergo baseline tests consisting of a clinical/anthropometrical examination and biomechanical measurements. Furthermore, participants will log all training sessions in a diary on a weekly basis for 1 year. The primary exposure variable is changes in training load. A medical practitioner will examine runners suffering from running-related pain and, if possible, make a clear diagnosis. Finally, additional time-varying exposure variables will be included in the main analysis, whereas the analysis for the secondary purpose is based on time-fixed baseline-related risk factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval (DNR: 712-15) for the study and its design was obtained from the Gothenburg regional ethical review board. The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.