Biomechanics associated with tibial stress fracture in runners: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Journal of Sport and Health Science
2022
- 225Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage225
- Downloads217
- Abstract Views8
Article Description
Background Tibial stress fracture (TSF) is an overuse running injury with a long recovery period. While many running studies refer to biomechanical risk factors for TSF, only a few have compared biomechanics in runners with TSF to controls. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate biomechanics in runners with TSF compared to controls. Methods Electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL were searched. Risk of bias was assessed and meta-analysis conducted for variables reported in 3 or more studies. Results The search retrieved 359 unique records, but only the 14 that compared runners with TSF to controls were included in the review. Most studies were retrospective, 2 were prospective, and most had a small sample size (5–30 per group). Many variables were not significantly different between groups. Meta-analysis of peak impact, active, and braking ground reaction forces found no significant differences between groups. Individual studies found larger tibial peak anterior tensile stress, peak posterior compressive stress, peak axial acceleration, peak rearfoot eversion and hip adduction in the TSF group. Conclusion Meta-analysis indicated that discrete ground reaction force variables were not statistically significantly different in runners with TSF compared to controls. In individual included studies, many biomechanical variables were not statistically significantly different between groups. However, many were reported by only a single study, and sample sizes were small. We encourage additional studies with larger sample sizes of runners with TSF and controls and adequate statistical power to confirm or refute these findings.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know