ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2023
Changes in Running Kinematics and Kinetics Following a 10 km Run.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Little is known about changes in kinetics or kinematics following a 10 km training run. This information has implications on risk of running-related injury. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a 10 km run on running kinematics and kinetics in a sample of experienced runners. Study Design: Cross-Sectional Study. Subjects: Nineteen runners ages 18-48 (7 female, 12 male) consented to participate including eight (3 female, 5 male) ultra-runners, and 11 (4 female, 7 male) recreational runners. Methods: Following collection of demographic data and completion of a short running survey, participants did a 6-minute run at their self-selected running speed to acclimate to the instrumented treadmill. Reflective markers were placed over designated anatomical landmarks on both sides of the pelvis as well as the left lower extremity and marked with a skin pen. Subjects then ran on the treadmill and 30 seconds of video data were recorded at 240 frames/sec using a high-speed camera for the sagittal plane and the frontal plane. Simultaneously, ground reaction forces (GRFs) were recorded at 1200 Hz through the treadmill's embedded force plates. Each runner then ran 10 km on a paved trail at their self-selected pace. Immediately following the run, reflective markers were reattached, guided by markings placed before the run, and a 30-second post-run trial of the video and GRF data were recorded. Video data were analyzed using Kinovea software to measure the kinematic variables of interest. Paired t-tests with Bonferroni corrections were used to find if significant differences existed between pre- and post-run data for all kinematic and kinetic variables. Results: No significant or clinically relevant differences existed between the pre- and post-run measurements for the kinematic or kinetic variables. The only significant difference noted between the ultra-runners and recreational runners was that the ultra-runners had significantly higher cadence (p=0.045). Conclusions: A 10 km run at a self-selected pace did not result in change in the mean kinematic or kinetic variables in this group of experienced runners. Ultra-runners employ higher cadence than recreational runners, but their kinematics and kinetics are similar. Level of Evidence: Level 3.
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.