Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen1, Michael Lejbach Bertelsen1, Daniel Ramskov2, Camma Damsted1, Evert Verhagen3, Steef W Bredeweg4, Daniel Theisen5, Laurent Malisoux6
1 Department of Public Health, Section for Sport Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
2 Department of Physiotherapy, University College of Northern Denmark, Aalborg, Denmark
3 Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, Netherlands
4 Center for Sports Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
5 ALAN—Maladies Rares Luxembourg, Bascharage, Luxembourg
6 Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Background
In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aim to prevent sports injuries, the intention-to-treat principle is a recommended analysis method and one emphasised in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement that guides quality reporting of such trials. However, an important element of injury prevention trials—compliance with the intervention—is not always well-reported. The purpose of the present educational review was to describe the compliance during follow-up in eight large-scale sports injury trials and address compliance issues that surfaced. Then, we discuss how readers and researchers might consider interpreting results from intention-to-treat analyses depending on the observed compliance with the intervention.
Damsted C1, Glad S2, Nielsen RO1, Sørensen H1, Malisoux L3.
1 Section of Sport Science, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
2 University College Lillebaelt, Odense, Denmark.
3 Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Department of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg.
BACKGROUND:
Sudden changes (increases and decreases) in training load have been suggested to play a key role in the development of running-related injuries. However, the compiled evidence for an association between change in training load and running-related injury does not exist.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the present systematic review was to compile the evidence from original articles examining the association between changes in training load and running-related injuries.
STUDY DESIGN:
Systematic review.
Malisoux L1, Chambon N2, Urhausen A3, Theisen D1.
1Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
2Decathlon, Movement Sciences Department, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
3Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg Sports Clinic, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
BACKGROUND/AIM:
Modern running shoes are available in a wide range of heel-to-toe drops (ie, the height difference between the forward and rear parts of the inside of the shoe). While shoe drop has been shown to influence strike pattern, its effect on injury risk has never been investigated. Therefore, the reasons for such variety in this parameter are unclear.
Malisoux L1, Gette P2, Chambon N3, Urhausen A4, Theisen D2.
1 Luxembourg Institute of Health, Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, Luxembourg. Electronic address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
2 Luxembourg Institute of Health, Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
3 Decathlon, Movement Sciences Laboratory, Villeneuve d'Asq, France.
4 Luxembourg Institute of Health, Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, Luxembourg; Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, Sports Clinic, Luxembourg; International University of Health, Exercise and Sports (LUNEX), Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
OBJECTIVES:
While several cross-sectional studies have investigated the acute effects of shoe drop on running biomechanics, the long-term consequences are currently unknown. This study aimed to investigate if the drop of standard cushioned shoes induces specific adaptations in running technique over a six-month period in leisure-time runners.
DESIGN:
Double-blinded randomised controlled trial.
Malisoux L1, Chambon N2, Delattre N2, Gueguen N2, Urhausen A3, Theisen D1.
1Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
2Decathlon, Movement Sciences Department, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
3Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg Sports Clinic, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
BACKGROUND/AIM:
This randomised controlled trial investigated if the usage of running shoes with a motion control system modifies injury risk in regular leisure-time runners compared to standard shoes, and if this influence depends on foot morphology.