Publication

What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kluitenberg, B., van Middelkoop, M., Diercks, R. & van der Worp, H., Aug-2015, In : Sports Medicine. 45, 8, p. 1143-1161 19 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Kluitenberg, B., van Middelkoop, M., Diercks, R., & van der Worp, H. (2015). What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(8), 1143-1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0331-x

Author

Kluitenberg, Bas ; van Middelkoop, Marienke ; Diercks, Ron ; van der Worp, Henk. / What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. In: Sports Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 45, No. 8. pp. 1143-1161.

Harvard

Kluitenberg, B, van Middelkoop, M, Diercks, R & van der Worp, H 2015, 'What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis', Sports Medicine, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1143-1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0331-x

Standard

What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. / Kluitenberg, Bas; van Middelkoop, Marienke; Diercks, Ron; van der Worp, Henk.

In: Sports Medicine, Vol. 45, No. 8, 08.2015, p. 1143-1161.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Kluitenberg B, van Middelkoop M, Diercks R, van der Worp H. What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2015 Aug;45(8):1143-1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0331-x


BibTeX

@article{e914566629124205a0e5cf2fe098d8ac,
title = "What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis",
abstract = "Background Many runners suffer from injuries. No information on high-risk populations is available so far though.Objectives The aims of this study were to systematically review injury proportions in different populations of runners and to compare injury locations between these populations.Data Sources An electronic search with no date restrictions was conducted up to February 2014 in the PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases. The search was limited to original articles written in English. The reference lists of the included articles were checked for potentially relevant studies.Study Eligibility Criteria Studies were eligible when the proportion of running injuries was reported and the participants belonged to one or more homogeneous populations of runners that were clearly described. Study selection was conducted by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting.Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Details of the study design, population of runners, sample size, injury definition, method of injury assessment, number of injuries and injury locations were extracted from the articles. The risk of bias was assessed with a scale consisting of eight items, which was specifically developed for studies focusing on musculoskeletal complaints.Results A total of 86 articles were included in this review. Where possible, injury proportions were pooled for each identified population of runners, using a random-effects model. Injury proportions were affected by injury definitions and durations of follow-up. Large differences between populations existed. The number of medical-attention injuries during an event was small for most populations of runners, except for ultra-marathon runners, in which the pooled estimate was 65.6 {\%}. Time-loss injury proportions between different populations of runners ranged from 3.2 {\%} in cross-country runners to 84.9 {\%} in novice runners. Overall, the proportions were highest among short-distance track runners and ultra-marathon runners.Limitations The results were pooled by stratification of studies according to the population, injury definition and follow-up/recall period; however, heterogeneity was high.Conclusions Large differences in injury proportions between different populations of runners existed. Injury proportions were affected by the duration of follow-up. A U-shaped pattern between the running distance and the time-loss injury proportion seemed to exist. Future prospective studies of injury surveillance are highly recommended to take running exposure and censoring into account.",
keywords = "CROSS-COUNTRY RUNNERS, RUNNING-RELATED INJURIES, WORLD ATHLETICS CHAMPIONSHIPS, NONINJURED NOVICE RUNNERS, LOWER-EXTREMITY INJURIES, TIBIAL STRESS SYNDROME, INTRINSIC RISK-FACTORS, MALE MARATHON RUNNERS, HIGH-SCHOOL SPORTS, MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURIES",
author = "Bas Kluitenberg and {van Middelkoop}, Marienke and Ron Diercks and {van der Worp}, Henk",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s40279-015-0331-x",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "1143--1161",
journal = "Sports Medicine",
issn = "0112-1642",
publisher = "ADIS INT LTD",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners?

T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AU - Kluitenberg, Bas

AU - van Middelkoop, Marienke

AU - Diercks, Ron

AU - van der Worp, Henk

PY - 2015/8

Y1 - 2015/8

N2 - Background Many runners suffer from injuries. No information on high-risk populations is available so far though.Objectives The aims of this study were to systematically review injury proportions in different populations of runners and to compare injury locations between these populations.Data Sources An electronic search with no date restrictions was conducted up to February 2014 in the PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases. The search was limited to original articles written in English. The reference lists of the included articles were checked for potentially relevant studies.Study Eligibility Criteria Studies were eligible when the proportion of running injuries was reported and the participants belonged to one or more homogeneous populations of runners that were clearly described. Study selection was conducted by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting.Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Details of the study design, population of runners, sample size, injury definition, method of injury assessment, number of injuries and injury locations were extracted from the articles. The risk of bias was assessed with a scale consisting of eight items, which was specifically developed for studies focusing on musculoskeletal complaints.Results A total of 86 articles were included in this review. Where possible, injury proportions were pooled for each identified population of runners, using a random-effects model. Injury proportions were affected by injury definitions and durations of follow-up. Large differences between populations existed. The number of medical-attention injuries during an event was small for most populations of runners, except for ultra-marathon runners, in which the pooled estimate was 65.6 %. Time-loss injury proportions between different populations of runners ranged from 3.2 % in cross-country runners to 84.9 % in novice runners. Overall, the proportions were highest among short-distance track runners and ultra-marathon runners.Limitations The results were pooled by stratification of studies according to the population, injury definition and follow-up/recall period; however, heterogeneity was high.Conclusions Large differences in injury proportions between different populations of runners existed. Injury proportions were affected by the duration of follow-up. A U-shaped pattern between the running distance and the time-loss injury proportion seemed to exist. Future prospective studies of injury surveillance are highly recommended to take running exposure and censoring into account.

AB - Background Many runners suffer from injuries. No information on high-risk populations is available so far though.Objectives The aims of this study were to systematically review injury proportions in different populations of runners and to compare injury locations between these populations.Data Sources An electronic search with no date restrictions was conducted up to February 2014 in the PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases. The search was limited to original articles written in English. The reference lists of the included articles were checked for potentially relevant studies.Study Eligibility Criteria Studies were eligible when the proportion of running injuries was reported and the participants belonged to one or more homogeneous populations of runners that were clearly described. Study selection was conducted by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting.Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Details of the study design, population of runners, sample size, injury definition, method of injury assessment, number of injuries and injury locations were extracted from the articles. The risk of bias was assessed with a scale consisting of eight items, which was specifically developed for studies focusing on musculoskeletal complaints.Results A total of 86 articles were included in this review. Where possible, injury proportions were pooled for each identified population of runners, using a random-effects model. Injury proportions were affected by injury definitions and durations of follow-up. Large differences between populations existed. The number of medical-attention injuries during an event was small for most populations of runners, except for ultra-marathon runners, in which the pooled estimate was 65.6 %. Time-loss injury proportions between different populations of runners ranged from 3.2 % in cross-country runners to 84.9 % in novice runners. Overall, the proportions were highest among short-distance track runners and ultra-marathon runners.Limitations The results were pooled by stratification of studies according to the population, injury definition and follow-up/recall period; however, heterogeneity was high.Conclusions Large differences in injury proportions between different populations of runners existed. Injury proportions were affected by the duration of follow-up. A U-shaped pattern between the running distance and the time-loss injury proportion seemed to exist. Future prospective studies of injury surveillance are highly recommended to take running exposure and censoring into account.

KW - CROSS-COUNTRY RUNNERS

KW - RUNNING-RELATED INJURIES

KW - WORLD ATHLETICS CHAMPIONSHIPS

KW - NONINJURED NOVICE RUNNERS

KW - LOWER-EXTREMITY INJURIES

KW - TIBIAL STRESS SYNDROME

KW - INTRINSIC RISK-FACTORS

KW - MALE MARATHON RUNNERS

KW - HIGH-SCHOOL SPORTS

KW - MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURIES

U2 - 10.1007/s40279-015-0331-x

DO - 10.1007/s40279-015-0331-x

M3 - Review article

VL - 45

SP - 1143

EP - 1161

JO - Sports Medicine

JF - Sports Medicine

SN - 0112-1642

IS - 8

ER -

ID: 19206484