Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Sports Injury (1)
- adaptive technology (1)
- ankle sprain (1)
- biomechanics (1)
- injury (1)
- inversion (1)
- overuse injuries (1)
- protective equipment (1)
- risk factors (1)
- running (1)
Institute
Open Access
- Hybrid (3) (remove)
Background: Running overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical risk factors (BRFs) are related to the individual running style. While BRFs have been reviewed regarding general ROI risk, no systematic review has addressed BRFs for specific ROIs using a standardized methodology.
Objective: To identify and evaluate the evidence for the most relevant BRFs for ROIs determined during running and to
suggest future research directions.
Design: Systematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236,832).
Data Sources: PubMed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021.
Eligibility Criteria: English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic BRF. A BRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two independent retrospective studies. BRFs needed to be determined during running.
Results: Sixty-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some BRFs appeared for several ROIs, most BRFs were specific for a particular ROI. Most BRFs derived from lower-extremity joint kinematics and kinetics were located in the frontal and transverse planes of motion. Further, plantar pressure, vertical ground reaction force loading rate and free moment-related parameters were identified as kinetic BRFs.
Conclusion: This study offers a comprehensive overview of BRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. We identified limited evidence for most ROI-specific risk factors, highlighting the need for performing further high-quality studies in the future. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted.
Appraising the Methodological Quality of Sports Injury Video Analysis Studies: The QA-SIVAS Scale
(2023)
Background
Video analysis (VA) is commonly used in the assessment of sports injuries and has received considerable research interest. Until now, no tool has been available for the assessment of study quality. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a valid instrument that reliably assesses the methodological quality of VA studies.
Methods
The Quality Appraisal for Sports Injury Video Analysis Studies (QA-SIVAS) scale was developed using a modified Delphi approach including expert consensus and pilot testing. Reliability was examined through intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3,1) and free-marginal kappa statistics by three independent raters. Construct validity was investigated by comparing QA-SIVAS with expert ratings by using Kendall’s tau analysis. Rating time was studied by applying the scale to 21 studies and computing the mean time for rating per study article.
Results
The QA-SIVAS scale consists of an 18-item checklist addressing the study design, data source, conduct, report, and discussion of VA studies in sports injury research. Inter- and intra-rater reliability were excellent with ICCs > 0.97. Expert ratings revealed a high construct validity (0.71; p < 0.001). Mean rating time was 10 ± 2 min per article.
Conclusion
QA-SIVAS is a reliable and valid instrument that can be easily applied to sports injury research. Future studies in the field of VA should adhere to standardized methodological criteria and strict quality guidelines.
Background:
Ankle braces aim to reduce lateral ankle sprains. Next to protection, factors influencing user compliance, such as sports performance, motion restriction, and users’ perceptions, are relevant for user compliance and thus injury prevention. Novel adaptive protection systems claim to change their mechanical behavior based on the intensity of motion (eg, the inversion velocity), unlike traditional passive concepts of ankle bracing.
Purpose:
To compare the performance of a novel adaptive brace with 2 passive ankle braces while considering protection, sports performance, freedom of motion, and subjective perception.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
The authors analyzed 1 adaptive and 2 passive (one lace-up and one rigid brace) ankle braces, worn in a low-cut, indoor sports shoe, which was also the no-brace reference condition. We performed material testing using an artificial ankle joint system at high and low inversion velocities. Further, 20 male, young, healthy team sports athletes were analyzed using 3-dimensional motion analysis in sports-related movements to address protection, sports performance, and active range of motion dimensions. Participants rated subjective comfort, stability, and restriction experienced when using the products.
Results:
Subjective stability rating was not different between the adaptive and passive systems. The rigid brace was superior in restricting peak inversion during the biomechanical testing compared with the passive braces. However, in the material test, the adaptive brace increased its stiffness by approximately 400% during the fast compared with the slow inversion velocities, demonstrating its adaptive behavior and similar stiffness values to passive braces. We identified minor differences in sports performance tasks. The adaptive brace improved active ankle range of motion and subjective comfort and restriction ratings.
Conclusion:
The adaptive brace offered similar protective effects in high-velocity inversion situations to those of the passive braces while improving range of motion, comfort, and restriction rating during noninjurious motions.
Clinical Relevance:
Protection systems are only effective when used. Compared with traditional passive ankle brace technologies, the novel adaptive brace might increase user compliance by improving comfort and freedom of movement while offering similar protection in injurious situations.