ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of impact accelerations between injury-resistant and recently injured recreational runners.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Field-Based Gait Retraining to Reduce Impact Loading Using Tibial Accelerometers in High-Impact Recreational Runners: A Feasibility Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Wearables for running gait analysis: A study protocol.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction/purposePrevious injury has consistently been shown to be one of the greatest risk factors for running-related injuries (RRIs). Runners returning to participation following injury may still demonstrate injury-related mechanics (e.g. repetitive high impact loading), potentially exposing them to further injuries. The aim of this study was to determine if the magnitude (Peakaccel) and rate of loading (Rateaccel) at the tibia and sacrum differ between runners who have never been injured, those who have acquired injury resistance (runners who have not been injured in the past 2 years) and those who have been recently injured (RRI sustained 3-12 months ago).
methodsRunners completed an online survey capturing details of their RRI history over the previous 2 years. Never injured runners were matched by sex, quarterly annual mileage and typical training speed to runners who had acquired injury resistance and to runners who had been recently injured. Differences in Peakaccel and Rateaccel of the tibia and sacrum were assessed between the three groups during a treadmill run at a set speed, with consideration for sex.
resultsA total of 147 runners made up the three injury status groups (n: 49 per group). There was a significant main effect of injury status for Peakaccel and Rateaccel at the sacrum, with recently injured runners demonstrating significantly greater Rateaccel than never injured and acquired injury resistant runners. There was also a significant main effect for sex, with females demonstrating greater tibial Peakaccel, sacrum Peakaccel and Rateaccel than males.
conclusionRateaccel at the sacrum distinguishes recently injured runners from never injured runners and runners who may have acquired injury resistance, potentially highlighting poor impact acceleration attenuation in recently injured runners.
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.