BackgroundThe popularity of running continues to increase, which means that the incidence of running-related injuries will probably also continue to increase. Little is known about risk factors for running injuries and whether they are sex-specific.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to review information about risk factors and sex-specific differences for running-induced injuries in adults.Search StrategyThe databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Psych-INFO were searched for relevant articles.Selection CriteriaLongitudinal cohort studies with a minimal follow-up of 1 month that investigated the association between risk factors (personal factors, running/training factors and/or health and lifestyle factors) and the occurrence of lower limb injuries in runners were included.Data Collection and AnalysisTwo reviewers’ independently selected relevant articles from those identified by the systematic search and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The strength of the evidence was determined using a best-evidence rating system. Sex differences in risk were determined by calculating the sex ratio for risk factors (the risk factor for women divided by the risk factor for men).Main ResultsOf 400 articles retrieved, 15 longitudinal studies were included, of which 11 were considered high-quality studies and 4 moderate-quality studies. Overall, women were at lower risk than men for sustaining running-related injuries. Strong and moderate evidence was found that a history of previous injury and of having used orthotics/inserts was associated with an increased risk of running injuries. Age, previous sports activity, running on a concrete surface, participating in a marathon, weekly running distance (30–39 miles) and wearing running shoes for 4 to 6 months were associated with a greater risk of injury in women than in men. A history of previous injuries, having a running experience of 0–2 years, restarting running, weekly running distance (20–29 miles) and having a running distance of more than 40 miles per week were associated with a greater risk of running-related injury in men than in women.ConclusionsPrevious injury and use of orthotic/inserts are risk factors for running injuries. There appeared to be differences in the risk profile of men and women, but as few studies presented results for men and women separately, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further research should attempt to minimize methodological bias by paying attention to recall bias for running injuries, follow-up time, and the participation rate of the identified target group.

There is a consensus on treatment strategies for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) being reversible. Among reversible therapies, physiotherapy is often chosen for the treatment of TMD pain and dysfunction because it is simple and non-invasive, it has a low cost as compared with other treatments, it allows an easy self-management approach, it allows a good doctor-patient communication, and it can be managed by the general practitioner. Home-exercises regime protocols are reviewed in this article in the context of the biopsychosocial approach. The actual evidence for the efficacy of home physical exercises is weak because of the very limited number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available in literature. Therefore, there is a need for further well-designed studies and RCTs to investigate the therapeutic efficacy. Recent reports and clinical experience, however, suggest that this approach can be promising, particularly if it is tailored towards the individual patient. The favourable cost benefit ratio over other treatment modalities seems to indicate that physiotherapy can be regarded as a first choice approach in selected TMD patients.

This study was performed to assess the prevalence of signs and symptoms related to cervical spine disorders (CSD) in subgroups of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and to compare TMD patients and CSD patients with regard to the results of orthopaedic cervical spine tests. One hundred and eleven consecutive patients with TMD and 103 consecutive patients with signs and symptoms of CSD were examined. The results indicated that there is a considerable overlap in the signs and symptoms of patients with TMD and patients with CSD. Signs and symptoms on neck extension occurred more often in CSD patients than in subgroups of TMD patients. No significant differences in upper cervical extension, neck flexion, and shoulder girdle function were found between CSD patients and subgroups of patients with TMD. Patients with CSD reported neck pain during active and passive movements of the neck more often than the subgroups of patients with TMD. TMD patients and CSD patients did not differ with regard to pain on shoulder girdle function and palpation of the shoulder girdle. Logistic regression analyses showed that orthopaedic tests of the cervical spine are of minor importance in discriminating between patients with TMD and patients with CSD. It is concluded that TMD with a myogenous involvement in contrast to TMD with only an arthrogenous involvement should no longer be viewed as a local disorder of the stomatognathic system. The upper quarter, including the stomatognathic system, cervical spine, and shoulder girdle, should be evaluated in patients with more complex or persistent symptoms in the head and neck region.

Neck dissection, tumor site, and extensive reconstruction are related to deterioration of shoulder function shortly after intervention. Maximal active shoulder abduction was affected most.

Masticatory function can be impaired in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) patients. We investigated whether treatment of subacute non-specific TMD patients may influence oral function and clinical outcome measures. Fifteen patients with subacute TMD participated in the study. We quantified masticatory performance, maximum voluntary bite force, muscle activity and chewing cycle duration before and after treatment. Masticatory performance and bite force of patients were compared with the results obtained for an age- and gender-matched group of subjects without TMD complaints. Furthermore, we determined possible changes in anamnestic and clinical scores from questionnaires (mandibular function impairment questionnaire; MFIQ), pain scores and clinical outcome measures. Maximum bite force significantly increased, although the values after treatment were still significantly lower than those of the subjects without TMD complaints. The corresponding electromyography values did not show significant change after treatment. The masticatory performance of the patients remained unaltered; patients chewed significantly less efficient than controls. The average duration of chewing cycles significantly decreased after treatment. We observed a significant improvement in MFIQ scores. During the clenching and chewing tasks, the visual analogue scale scores were significantly higher than before these tasks. We may conclude that subacute temporomandibular joint disorders negatively influence chewing behaviour. Bite force, chewing cycle duration and also perceived mandibular function significantly improved after treatment, although the masticatory performance remained unaltered.