↓ Skip to main content

Risk and Protective Factors for Middle- and Long-Distance Running-Related Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
108 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risk and Protective Factors for Middle- and Long-Distance Running-Related Injury
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40279-016-0636-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Hulme, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen, Toomas Timpka, Evert Verhagen, Caroline Finch

Abstract

Despite a rapidly growing body of research, a systematic evidence compilation of the risk and protective factors for middle- and long-distance running-related injury (RRI) was lacking. Our objective was to compile the evidence about modifiable and non-modifiable training-related and behavioral risk and protective factors for middle- and long-distance RRI. We searched five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO) for the dates 1 January 1970 to 31 December 2015, inclusive, for original peer-reviewed articles. The eligible designs were cross-sectional, case-control, longitudinal observational studies, and randomized controlled trials involving runners competing at distances from ≥800 m to ≤42.2 km. Outcomes were any specific and/or general RRI, and exposures included training-related and behavioral factors. We extracted authors and date, study design, injury type(s), descriptors and comparators for each exposure, and results and measures of association from the selected studies. Methodological quality was independently appraised using two separate checklists: a modified checklist for observational study designs and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale for randomized controlled trials. Among 73 articles eligible for inclusion, 19 (26.0%) and 30 (41.0%) were of high or satisfactory methodological quality, respectively. As a non-modifiable exposure, a history of previous injury was found to be associated with an increased risk of both general and specific RRI. In terms of modifiable exposures, irregular and/or absent menstruation was found to be associated with an increased risk of stress fracture development, whereas the use of oral contraceptives was found to be associated with a decreased risk. High clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity meant it was not feasible to estimate a pooled effect size across similar studies. A history of previous injury was associated with an increased risk of both general and specific RRI. The use of oral contraceptives was found to be associated with a decreased risk of skeletal stress fracture. Conversely, irregular and/or absent menstruation was associated with an increased risk. The varied effect directions and/or a number of statistically insignificant results associated with the majority of factors hindered our ability to draw any definitive conclusions about their relationship to RRI risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 108 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 284 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 16%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Researcher 20 7%
Other 15 5%
Other 51 18%
Unknown 82 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 59 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 51 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 16%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 99 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#652,809
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#607
of 2,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,423
of 322,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#17
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.