Training volume and previous injury as associated factors for running-related injuries by race distance: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to determine the relationship between weekly pre-competition running volume and the presence of running-related injuries (RRIs) by race distance. Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to 25,000 participants, 14 days following the running event. The questionnaire included the presence and topography of RRIs, previous injury in the last 12 months, running experience, training, and sociodemographic characteristics. Univariate and multivariable binomial regression was used to analyse the crude and adjusted relationship of RRI and training volumes. Results: 4380 surveys were analysed (10km, n=1316; 21km, n= 2168; 42km, n=896). The median age was 36 years. Previous injury was reported by 51.8% of the respondents. Median training volume in the previous month was 15 km/week (IQR 6-24), 30 km/week (IQR 15-40) and 45 km/week (IQR 30-60), for the 10km, 21km, and 42km distances, respectively. During the race, 14.1% reported a RRI, with 43.1% located at the knee. The multivariable analysis showed previous injury and distance as the main associated factors, whereas weekly training volume, age, and previous participation were protective. Conclusion: Race is an inciting event for developing a RRI. Running race distance is an important factor itself and should be incorporated with other modifiable risk factors in current injury models.

Prevalence and incidence of low back pain among runners: a systematic review

“…The 19 included studies were: cross-sectional (n = 6) [63][64][65][66][67][68]; retrospective (n = 3) [69][70][71]; and prospective (n = 10) [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]. They were all published in English, starting from 1981 [69] to 2019 [66,80]. Overall, followups or time duration of these studies ranged from 6 weeks [76] to 2 years [79], while sample sizes varied from a minimum of 4059 to a maximum of 4380 participants [66].…”

“…They were all published in English, starting from 1981 [69] to 2019 [66,80]. Overall, followups or time duration of these studies ranged from 6 weeks [76] to 2 years [79], while sample sizes varied from a minimum of 4059 to a maximum of 4380 participants [66]. The characteristics of included studies are reported in Table 2.…”

“…More in depth in one study [68], another two items were rated as high risk, one regarding the reliability of the condition measurement and one regarding the validity of identification of the condition. For cross-sectional studies, the majority of studies had low and, less commonly, unclear RoB [63][64][65][66][67][68]. However, among them, in the study of Marti et al [68], the item related to the criteria for inclusion was rated as high risk, likewise the item about the reliability of the condition measurement in the study of Chang et al [67].…”

“…Six were cross-sectional studies [63][64][65][66][67][68], one was a retrospective study [70] and one was a prospective study [81]. The range of point prevalence ranged from a minimum of 0, 7% [66] at a maximum of 13.6% [63] and lifetime prevalence ranged from a minimum of 3.2% [67] a maximum of 20.2% [64]. Point prevalence values, 13.6 and 0.7% respectively, were reported in two studies [58,64].…”

“…Five studies reported values of 1-year prevalence [65,66,68,70,81], ranged from 14% [65,70] to 0.7% [68], and those about lifetime prevalence were two [63,64], 3.2 and 20.2% respectively. Only 1 study [66] addressed data for point and 1-year prevalence, with values of 0.7 and 13.5% respectively [66]. Also in the cross-sectional survey study of Woolf et al [63], the point prevalence of LBP in runners was reported, and it was equal to 13.6%.…”