Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35247202›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Running-Related Biomechanical Risk Factors for Overuse Injuries in Distance Runners: A Systematic Review Considering Injury Specificity and the Potentials for Future Research.

Steffen Willwacher, Markus Kurz, Johanna Robbin, Matthias Thelen, Joseph Hamill, Luke Kelly, Patrick Mai

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Epidemiology, Work-Up, and Management of Common Track and Field Injuries.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Steffen WillwacherDepartment for Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Offenburg, Germany. steffen.willwacher@hs-offenburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1303-3165
Markus KurzDepartment of Quality Technology & Mechanical Engineering, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.
Johanna RobbinDepartment for Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Offenburg, Germany.
Matthias ThelenInstitute for Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Joseph HamillBiomechanics Laboratory, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
Luke KellySchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Patrick MaiDepartment for Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Offenburg, Germany.
German Sport University Cologne · DEMid Sweden University · SEThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRunning overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical risk factors (BRFs) are related to the individual running style. While BRFs have been reviewed regarding general ROI risk, no systematic review has addressed BRFs for specific ROIs using a standardized methodology.

objectiveTo identify and evaluate the evidence for the most relevant BRFs for ROIs determined during running and to suggest future research directions.

designSystematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236,832). DATA SOURCES: PubMed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic BRF. A BRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two independent retrospective studies. BRFs needed to be determined during running.

resultsSixty-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some BRFs appeared for several ROIs, most BRFs were specific for a particular ROI. Most BRFs derived from lower-extremity joint kinematics and kinetics were located in the frontal and transverse planes of motion. Further, plantar pressure, vertical ground reaction force loading rate and free moment-related parameters were identified as kinetic BRFs.

conclusionThis study offers a comprehensive overview of BRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. We identified limited evidence for most ROI-specific risk factors, highlighting the need for performing further high-quality studies in the future. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted.

Indexed as

Cumulative Trauma DisordersRunningBiomechanical PhenomenaData CollectionHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID35247202
PMCPMC9325808
OpenAlexW4220812551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.