4.6 Review

Running retraining to treat lower limb injuries: a mixed-methods study of current evidence synthesised with expert opinion

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095278

关键词

-

资金

  1. La Trobe University's Lower Extremity Gait Studies (LEGS) programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Importance Running-related injuries are highly prevalent. Objective Synthesise published evidence with international expert opinion on the use of running retraining when treating lower limb injuries. Design Mixed methods. Methods A systematic review of clinical and biomechanical findings related to running retraining interventions were synthesised and combined with semistructured interviews with 16 international experts covering clinical reasoning related to the implementation of running retraining. Results Limited evidence supports the effectiveness of transition from rearfoot to forefoot or midfoot strike and increase step rate or altering proximal mechanics in individuals with anterior exertional lower leg pain; and visual and verbal feedback to reduce hip adduction in females with patellofemoral pain. Despite the paucity of clinical evidence, experts recommended running retraining for: iliotibial band syndrome; plantar fasciopathy (fasciitis); Achilles, patellar, proximal hamstring and gluteal tendinopathy; calf pain; and medial tibial stress syndrome. Tailoring approaches to each injury and individual was recommended to optimise outcomes. Substantial evidence exists for the immediate biomechanical effects of running retraining interventions (46 studies), including evaluation of step rate and strike pattern manipulation, strategies to alter proximal kinematics and cues to reduce impact loading variables. Summary and relevance Our synthesis of published evidence related to clinical outcomes and biomechanical effects with expert opinion indicates running retraining warrants consideration in the treatment of lower limb injuries in clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据