V. Campos1, M. Besomi1,2, J. Leppe1,2
1Programa de Magister en Terapia Física y Rehabilitación, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile, 2Carrera de Kinesiología, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
Background: Given the exponential increase in running and the high prevalence of running-related injuries (RRIs), there is a substantial amount of information and literature about preventive strategies and management of these injuries. The description of such interventions may help planning future prevention and treatment programs and provide guidelines for future investigations about the gap in the existing literature, and the quality of the existent evidence.
Purpose: This review aimed to describe the preventive and treatment modalities of RRIs available in the literature. Additionally, it aimed to identify the methodological considerations of the quality of the reporting according to the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist.
Methods: A scoping review of the scientific literature was carried out using electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE, SciELO Citation INDEX) and grey literature (i.e., Clinicaltrials.gov and UpToDate databases) from inception to 17th September 2020. Studies and protocols were included if they reported a preventive or treatment intervention of RRIs in runners. Physiotherapy and medical interventions were considerated. The type of studies included were randomized clinical trials, randomized clinical trials protocols and feasibility studies for treatment modalities, and longitudinal prospective studies for preventive modalities. The search strategy was divided into three parts: 1) prevention or treatment, 2) running, and 3) injuries, using a combination of MeSH terms and keywords. Extracted information included: study setting; study design; sample characteristics; diagnostic criteria of the condition and definition of RRI, and type and description of the intervention (e.g., duration, frequency). We also extracted the information required to apply the TIDieR checklist. One reviewer (VC) extracted all data, and any query was discussed and resolved by all investigators. A qualitative analysis was used to describe and synthetize the data based on general categories.
Results: 1437 studies were yield, of which, 43 were included in analysis. Of them, 29 (67.4%) reported preventive modalities (n = 9885 participants), and 14 (32.5%) treatment modalities (n = 438 participants). Prevention and treatment strategies were grouped in nine different categories: strengthening exercise, footwear, education, training, gait retraining, physical agents, stretching, corticosteroid injections, and manual therapy. Most reported modality for both prevention and treatment studies were strengthening exercise (16/43, 37.2%). Physical agent modalities (2/43, 4.6%) and stretching (1/43, 2.3%) were the least reported. All studies (43/43, 100%) reported a brief title and rationale of the intervention according to the TIDieR checklist. The least reported item was the dosage of the intervention (20/43, 46.5%) (i.e., when and how much).
Conclusion(s): This review summarizes the main preventive and treatment modalities for RRIs in runners. The summary of evidence highlights the gap in current reporting of intervention studies. Results could be used as a comprehensive resource for clinicians and researchers interested in RRI management.
Implications: Main gap areas in the literature found were dosage of the interventions. The identification of the main intervention modalities for the management of RRIs may help to plan future preventive and treatment strategies for these injuries. Improving the quality of the reporting of these interventions will likely enhance the replicability of studies, as well as the comparability between them.
Funding, acknowledgements: There was no funding received to support this study.
Keywords: Prevention, Treatment, Running-related injury
Topic: Sport & sports injuries
Did this work require ethics approval? No
Institution: Universidad del Desarrollo – Facultad de Medicina CAS-UDD
Committee: Comité Ético Científico.
Reason: This was a scoping review and did not involve primary data collection in human participants, therefore no ethical approval was required.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
