Risk factors for overuse injuries in short- and long-distance running: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review information about risk factors for lower extremity running injuries in both short-distance (mean running distance ≤20 km/week and ≤10 km/session) and long-distance runners (mean running distance >20 km/week and >10 km/session). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for articles published up to February 2019. Prospective cohort studies using multivariable analysis for the assessment of individual risk factors or risk models for the occurrence of lower extremity running injuries were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies for eligibility and assessed risk of bias with the Quality in Prognostic Studies Tool. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies were included: 17 studies focused on short-distance runners, 11 studies focused on long-distance runners, and 1 study focused on both types of runners. A previous running-related injury was the strongest risk factor for an injury for long-distance runners, with moderate-quality evidence. Previous injuries not attributed to running was the strongest risk factor for an injury for short-distance runners, with high-quality evidence. Higher body mass index, higher age, sex (male), having no previous running experience, and lower running volume were strong risk factors, with moderate quality evidence, for short-distance runners. Low-quality evidence was found for all risk models as predictors of running-related injuries among short- and long-distance runners. CONCLUSION: Several risk factors for lower extremity injuries have been identified among short- and long-distance runners, but the quality of evidence for these risk factors for running-related injuries is limited. Running injuries seem to have a multifactorial origin both in short- and long-distance runners.

Is lower hip range of motion a risk factor for groin pain in athletes? A systematic review with clinical applications.

BACKGROUND: Whether hip range of motion (ROM) is a risk factor for groin pain in athletes is not known. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the relationship between hip ROM and groin pain in athletes in cross-sectional/case-control and prospective studies. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review, prospectively registered (PROSPERO) according to PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were systematically searched up to December 2015. Two authors performed study selection, data extraction/analysis, quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) and strength of evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We identified seven prospective and four case-control studies. The total quality score ranged from 29% to 92%. Heterogeneity in groin pain classification, injury definitions and physical assessment precluded data pooling. There was strong evidence that total rotation of both hips below 85° measured at the pre-season screening was a risk factor for groin pain development. Strong evidence suggested that internal rotation, abduction and extension were not associated with the risk or presence of groin pain. CONCLUSION: Total hip ROM is the factor most consistently related to groin pain in athletes. Screening for hip ROM is unlikely to correctly identify an athlete at risk of developing groin pain because of the small ROM differences found and poor ROM measurement properties.

Clinimetric evaluation of methods to measure muscle functioning in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a significant health problem in modern society. There is evidence to suggest that neck muscle strength is reduced in patients with neck pain. This article provides a critical analysis of the research literature on the clinimetric properties of tests to measure neck muscle strength or endurance in patients with non-specific neck pain, which can be used in daily practice. METHODS: A computerised literature search was performed in the Medline, CINAHL and Embase databases from 1980 to January 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the clinimetric properties of identified measurement methods, using a checklist of generally accepted criteria for reproducibility (inter- and intra-observer reliability and agreement), construct validity, responsiveness and feasibility. RESULTS: The search identified a total of 16 studies. The instruments or tests included were: muscle endurance tests for short neck flexors, craniocervical flexion test with an inflatable pressure biofeedback unit, manual muscle testing of neck musculature, dynamometry and functional lifting tests (the cervical progressive iso-inertial lifting evaluation (PILE) test and the timed weighted overhead test). All the articles included report information on the reproducibility of the tests. Acceptable intra- and inter-observer reliability was demonstrated for t enduranctest for short neck flexors and the cervical PILE test. Construct validity and responsiveness have hardly been documented for tests on muscle functioning. CONCLUSION: The endurance test of the short neck flexors and the cervical PILE test can be regarded as appropriate instruments for measuring different aspects of neck muscle function in patients with non-specific neck pain. Common methodological flaws in the studies were their small sample size and an inappropriate description of the study design.

Clinimetric evaluation of active range of motion measures in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review.

The study is to provide a critical analysis of the research literature on clinimetric properties of instruments that can be used in daily practice to measure active cervical range of motion (ACROM) in patients with non-specific neck pain. A computerized literature search was performed in Medline, Cinahl and Embase from 1982 to January 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the clinimetric properties of identified instruments using a criteria list. The search identified a total of 33 studies, investigating three different types of measurement instruments to determine ACROM. These instruments were: (1) different types of goniometers/inclinometers, (2) visual estimation, and (3) tape measurements. Intra- and inter-observer reliability was demonstrated for the cervical range of motion instrument (CROM), Cybex electronic digital instrument (EDI-320) and a single inclinometer. The presence of agreement was assessed for the EDI-320 and a single inclinometer. The CROM received a positive rating for construct validity. When clinical acceptability is taken into account both the CROM and the single inclinometer can be considered appropriate instruments for measuring the active range of motion in patients with non-specific neck pain in daily practice. Reliability is the aspect most frequently evaluated. Agreement, validity and responsiveness are documented less frequently.