经验对跑步生物力学的不一致影响可能受到研究异质性和分类标准的影响:系统回顾和修订分类法的建议。

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Rodrigo Rabello, Gauri A Desai, Allison H Gruber
{"title":"经验对跑步生物力学的不一致影响可能受到研究异质性和分类标准的影响:系统回顾和修订分类法的建议。","authors":"Rodrigo Rabello, Gauri A Desai, Allison H Gruber","doi":"10.1186/s40798-025-00870-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Less-experienced runners are proposed to sustain more running related injuries (RRIs) than more-experienced runners because of differences in their gait biomechanics. However, the effects of running experience on biomechanics remain inconclusive. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the evidence concerning the influence of experience on running biomechanics and summarize the criteria used to classify running experience. A classification procedure for running experience was proposed based on the results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five common databases were searched for relevant articles following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO_ID CRD42022296734) and the PICO framework. Peer-reviewed research reporting a statistical effect of running experience on running gait biomechanics in adults (18-65 years) were included. Exclusion criteria were: subjects with current pathologies or symptomatic injuries; reporting running only barefoot, in minimalist shoes, during sprinting, or incline/decline running; classified experience only through performance-related measures; or did not specify running experience group definition. Risk of bias was assessed with the Downs and Black checklist. Extracted data were organized in tables and synthesized descriptively due to study heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight studies with 916 total subjects were included. Although most studies found significance in their comparisons, no studies comparing similar gait variables found the same statistical result. Some variables compared between experience levels were examined in only one study. Experience classification criteria were inconsistent between studies; cut-offs for more-experienced ranged between 2 and 10 years and/or 15-50 km/week and cut-offs for less-experienced ranged between 0.5 and 3 years and/or 0-20 km/week. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity among the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Effects of experience on running mechanics were inconsistent in the current literature. The lack of consistent findings may be due to the heterogeneous criteria used to classify runners into experience groups and the inconsistency of the variables investigated. Replication studies, heterogeneous study design, and longitudinal studies are needed to determine if or how running biomechanics change as runners gain experience. Heterogeneous study designs must begin with standard experience classification criteria for the effect of experience on running biomechanics to be identified. We propose an updated taxonomy to classify runners into groups considering three facets: exposure, performance, and intention.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO ID CRD42022296734. Registered 28 September 2022-Retrospectively registered, https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=149714 .</p>","PeriodicalId":21788,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine - Open","volume":"11 1","pages":"69"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12146231/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inconsistent Effects of Experience on Running Biomechanics May be Influenced by Study Heterogeneity and Classification Criteria: a Systematic Review and Proposal of a Revised Taxonomy.\",\"authors\":\"Rodrigo Rabello, Gauri A Desai, Allison H Gruber\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40798-025-00870-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Less-experienced runners are proposed to sustain more running related injuries (RRIs) than more-experienced runners because of differences in their gait biomechanics. However, the effects of running experience on biomechanics remain inconclusive. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the evidence concerning the influence of experience on running biomechanics and summarize the criteria used to classify running experience. A classification procedure for running experience was proposed based on the results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five common databases were searched for relevant articles following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO_ID CRD42022296734) and the PICO framework. Peer-reviewed research reporting a statistical effect of running experience on running gait biomechanics in adults (18-65 years) were included. Exclusion criteria were: subjects with current pathologies or symptomatic injuries; reporting running only barefoot, in minimalist shoes, during sprinting, or incline/decline running; classified experience only through performance-related measures; or did not specify running experience group definition. Risk of bias was assessed with the Downs and Black checklist. Extracted data were organized in tables and synthesized descriptively due to study heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight studies with 916 total subjects were included. Although most studies found significance in their comparisons, no studies comparing similar gait variables found the same statistical result. Some variables compared between experience levels were examined in only one study. Experience classification criteria were inconsistent between studies; cut-offs for more-experienced ranged between 2 and 10 years and/or 15-50 km/week and cut-offs for less-experienced ranged between 0.5 and 3 years and/or 0-20 km/week. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity among the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Effects of experience on running mechanics were inconsistent in the current literature. The lack of consistent findings may be due to the heterogeneous criteria used to classify runners into experience groups and the inconsistency of the variables investigated. Replication studies, heterogeneous study design, and longitudinal studies are needed to determine if or how running biomechanics change as runners gain experience. Heterogeneous study designs must begin with standard experience classification criteria for the effect of experience on running biomechanics to be identified. We propose an updated taxonomy to classify runners into groups considering three facets: exposure, performance, and intention.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO ID CRD42022296734. Registered 28 September 2022-Retrospectively registered, https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=149714 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21788,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine - Open\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12146231/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine - Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00870-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine - Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00870-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于步态生物力学的差异,经验不足的跑步者比经验丰富的跑步者遭受更多的跑步相关损伤(RRIs)。然而,跑步经验对生物力学的影响尚无定论。本系统综述的目的是检查有关经验对跑步生物力学影响的证据,并总结用于分类跑步经验的标准。在此基础上,提出了跑步体验的分类方法。方法:按照PRISMA指南(PROSPERO_ID CRD42022296734)和PICO框架检索5个常用数据库的相关文章。同行评议的研究报告了跑步经验对成人(18-65岁)跑步步态生物力学的统计效应。排除标准为:有当前病理或有症状性损伤的受试者;报告只赤脚跑步,穿着极简跑鞋,在冲刺或倾斜/倾斜跑步时跑步;仅通过与绩效相关的措施对体验进行分类;或者没有指定跑步体验组的定义。使用Downs和Black检查表评估偏倚风险。由于研究的异质性,提取的数据被组织在表格中并描述性地综合。结果:共纳入28项研究,916名受试者。虽然大多数研究在比较中发现了意义,但没有研究比较相似的步态变量得出相同的统计结果。仅在一项研究中检查了经验水平之间比较的一些变量。研究间经验分类标准不一致;经验较丰富的工作年限为2至10年和/或15-50公里/周,经验较少的工作年限为0.5至3年和/或0-20公里/周。由于纳入的研究存在异质性,无法进行meta分析。结论:经验对跑步力学的影响在现有文献中并不一致。缺乏一致的发现可能是由于用于将跑步者划分为经验组的不同标准以及所调查变量的不一致性。需要进行复制研究、异质研究设计和纵向研究,以确定跑步者获得经验后,跑步生物力学是否或如何发生变化。异质性研究设计必须从标准的经验分类标准开始,以确定经验对跑步生物力学的影响。我们提出了一个更新的分类法,将跑步者分为三个方面:暴露,表现和意图。试验注册:PROSPERO ID CRD42022296734。注册于2022年9月28日-追溯注册,https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=149714。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Inconsistent Effects of Experience on Running Biomechanics May be Influenced by Study Heterogeneity and Classification Criteria: a Systematic Review and Proposal of a Revised Taxonomy.

Inconsistent Effects of Experience on Running Biomechanics May be Influenced by Study Heterogeneity and Classification Criteria: a Systematic Review and Proposal of a Revised Taxonomy.

Inconsistent Effects of Experience on Running Biomechanics May be Influenced by Study Heterogeneity and Classification Criteria: a Systematic Review and Proposal of a Revised Taxonomy.

Background: Less-experienced runners are proposed to sustain more running related injuries (RRIs) than more-experienced runners because of differences in their gait biomechanics. However, the effects of running experience on biomechanics remain inconclusive. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the evidence concerning the influence of experience on running biomechanics and summarize the criteria used to classify running experience. A classification procedure for running experience was proposed based on the results.

Methods: Five common databases were searched for relevant articles following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO_ID CRD42022296734) and the PICO framework. Peer-reviewed research reporting a statistical effect of running experience on running gait biomechanics in adults (18-65 years) were included. Exclusion criteria were: subjects with current pathologies or symptomatic injuries; reporting running only barefoot, in minimalist shoes, during sprinting, or incline/decline running; classified experience only through performance-related measures; or did not specify running experience group definition. Risk of bias was assessed with the Downs and Black checklist. Extracted data were organized in tables and synthesized descriptively due to study heterogeneity.

Results: Twenty-eight studies with 916 total subjects were included. Although most studies found significance in their comparisons, no studies comparing similar gait variables found the same statistical result. Some variables compared between experience levels were examined in only one study. Experience classification criteria were inconsistent between studies; cut-offs for more-experienced ranged between 2 and 10 years and/or 15-50 km/week and cut-offs for less-experienced ranged between 0.5 and 3 years and/or 0-20 km/week. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity among the included studies.

Conclusion: Effects of experience on running mechanics were inconsistent in the current literature. The lack of consistent findings may be due to the heterogeneous criteria used to classify runners into experience groups and the inconsistency of the variables investigated. Replication studies, heterogeneous study design, and longitudinal studies are needed to determine if or how running biomechanics change as runners gain experience. Heterogeneous study designs must begin with standard experience classification criteria for the effect of experience on running biomechanics to be identified. We propose an updated taxonomy to classify runners into groups considering three facets: exposure, performance, and intention.

Trial registration: PROSPERO ID CRD42022296734. Registered 28 September 2022-Retrospectively registered, https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=149714 .

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Medicine - Open
Sports Medicine - Open SPORT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信