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.

BackgroundHip arthroscopies are often used in the treatment of intra-articular hip injuries. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are an important parameter in evaluating treatment. It is unclear which PRO questionnaires are specifically available for hip arthroscopy patients. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate which PRO questionnaires are valid and reliable in the evaluation of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.MethodsA search was conducted in Pubmed, Medline, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Pedro, EMBASE and Web of Science from 1931 to October 2010. Studies assessing the quality of PRO questionnaires in the evaluation of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were included. The quality of the questionnaires was evaluated by the psychometric properties of the outcome measures. The quality of the articles investigating the questionnaires was assessed by the COSMIN list.ResultsFive articles identified three questionnaires; the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and the Hip Outcome Score (HOS). The NAHS scored best on the content validity, whereas the HOS scored best on agreement, internal consistency, reliability and responsiveness. The quality of the articles describing the HOS scored highest. The NAHS is the best quality questionnaire. The articles describing the HOS are the best quality articles.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that there is no conclusive evidence for the use of a single patient-reported outcome questionnaire in the evaluation of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Based on available psychometric evidence we recommend using a combination of the NAHS and the HOS for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.

ObjectivesTo summarise recommendations and appraise the quality of international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction.DesignSystematic review of CPGs (PROSPERO number: CRD42017020407).Data sourcesPubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and grey literature databases were searched up to 30 September 2018.Eligibility criteriaEnglish-language CPGs on rehabilitation following ACL reconstruction that used systematic search of evidence to formulate recommendations.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to report the systematic review. Two appraisers used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to report comprehensiveness, consistency and quality of CPGs. We summarised recommendations for rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction.ResultsSix CPGs with an overall median AGREE II total score of 130 points (out of 168) and median overall quality of 63% were included. One CPG had an overall score below the 50% (poor quality score) and two CPGs scored above 80% (higher quality score). The lowest domain score was ‘applicability’ (can clinicians implement this in practice?) (29%) and the highest ‘scope and purpose’ (78%) and ‘clarity of presentation’ (75%). CPGs recommended immediate knee mobilisation and strength/neuromuscular training. Early full weight-bearing exercises, early open and closed kinetic-chain exercises, cryotherapy and neuromuscular electrostimulation may be used according individual circumstances. The CPGs recommend against continuous passive motion and functional bracing.ConclusionThe quality of the CPGs in ACL postoperative rehabilitation was good, but all CPGs showed poor applicability. Immediate knee mobilisation and strength/neuromuscular training should be used. Continuous passive motion and functional bracing should be eschewed.