↓ Skip to main content

Epidemiology and Aetiology of Marathon Running Injuries

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, November 2012
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
149 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
432 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Epidemiology and Aetiology of Marathon Running Injuries
Published in
Sports Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.2165/00007256-200737040-00043
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Fredericson, Anuruddh K. Misra

Abstract

Over the last 10-15 years, there has been a dramatic increase in popularity of running marathons. Numerous articles have reported on injuries to runners of all experience, with yearly incidence rates for injury reported to be as high as 90% in those training for marathons. To date, most of these studies have been cohort studies and retrospective surveys with remarkably few prospective studies. However, from the studies available, it is clear that more experienced runners are less prone to injury, with the number of years running being inversely related to incidence of injuries. For all runners, it is important to be fully recovered from any and all injury or illness prior to running a marathon. For those with less experience, a graduated training programme seems to clearly help prevent injuries with special attention to avoid any sudden increases in running load or intensity, with a particularly high risk for injury once a threshold of 40 miles/week is crossed. In both sexes, the most common injury by far was to the knee, typically on the anterior aspect (e.g. patellofemoral syndrome). Iliotibial band friction syndrome, tibial stress syndrome, plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendonitis and meniscal injuries of the knee were also commonly cited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 432 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 419 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 78 18%
Student > Master 75 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 11%
Student > Postgraduate 36 8%
Researcher 25 6%
Other 76 18%
Unknown 94 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 123 28%
Sports and Recreations 109 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Engineering 8 2%
Other 29 7%
Unknown 116 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 11 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,212,600
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,022
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,609
of 285,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#94
of 525 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 285,954 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 525 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.