Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35254562›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine - open2022

Biomechanical and Musculoskeletal Measurements as Risk Factors for Running-Related Injury in Non-elite Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.

Benjamin Peterson, Fiona Hawke, Martin Spink, Sean Sadler, Morgan Hawes, Robin Callister, Vivienne Chuter

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

7 authors.

Benjamin PetersonSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Central Coast Campus, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia. Benjamin.Peterson@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5301-4674
Fiona HawkeSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Central Coast Campus, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia.
Martin SpinkSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Central Coast Campus, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia.
Sean SadlerSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Central Coast Campus, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia.
Morgan HawesSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Central Coast Campus, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia.
Robin CallisterSchool of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan Campus, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Vivienne ChuterSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Central Coast Campus, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRunning-related injury (RRI) is highly prevalent among recreational runners and is a key barrier to participation. Atypical lower limb alignment and mechanical function have been proposed to play a role in development of lower extremity injury. The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between incidence of running-related injury (RRI) in non-elite runners with biomechanical and musculoskeletal variables.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Published research indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, AMED, and The Cochrane library until 13th January 2021, grey literature, and reference lists of included studies were screened to identify prospective studies of non-elite adult runners that measured a relationship between biomechanical or musculoskeletal measures and incidence of RRI.

resultsThirty studies (3404 runners), testing over 100 discrete biomechanical and musculoskeletal risk factors for RRI, were included. Nineteen studies were pooled in twenty-five separate meta-analyses. Meta-analysis of four studies detected significantly less knee extension strength among runners who developed a RRI (SMD - 0.19, 95% CI - 0.36 to - 0.02, p = 0.03), though this may not be clinically important. A meta-analysis of two studies detected significantly lower hip adduction velocity among runners who developed a RRI (MD - 12.80, 95% CI - 25.22 to - 0.38, p = 0.04). Remaining meta-analyses found no significant relationship between biomechanical or musculoskeletal variables and RRI.

conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis found the currently available literature does not generally support biomechanical or musculoskeletal measures as risk factors for RRI in non-elite runners. While meta-analysis findings for knee extension strength and hip adduction velocity as risk factors for RRI were statistically significant, the associated trivial to small effects sizes suggest these findings should be treated with caution. Until further evidence emerges, recommendations for injury prevention in non-elite runners cannot be made based on biomechanical and musculoskeletal measurements alone.

Indexed as

BiomechanicsMeta-analysisRisk factorRunning-related injuryScreeningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35254562
PMCPMC8901814

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.