Hoeberigs J H
Instituut Sportgeneeskunde Limburg, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sports Med. 1992 Jun;13(6):408-22. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199213060-00004.
The term incidence is interpreted in many different ways in the literature. Running injury epidemiology should include denominator-based incidence rates, in which the number of new injuries observed during 1 year is related to the population of runners at risk. In 10 studies with denominator-based incidences selected from the literature, the annual incidence rates of injured runners vary from 24 to 65%. Comparison of denominator-based incidence rates from different studies requires a discussion of the denominator and of the numerator; i.e. the study population and the definition of running injury. Injury definitions differ from one study to another. Study populations are particular subgroups of the total running population and they differ from one study to another. Subgroups may differ in origin: volunteers, runners from a mailing list or entrants of a road race. Incidence rates are higher among supervised volunteers than among listed runners, and higher among both these groups than among race-entrants. The choice from the universe of the running population and the used injury definition are methodological issues. Incidence is dependently associated with the prevalence of predisposing running injury factors. There is consistent epidemiological support for the role of a few aetiological factors; i.e. higher mileage per week, previous running injury, higher running speed and lesser running experience. Higher mileage per week is probably the strongest predictor. In the selected injury studies, mileage per week differs from one study population to another. Differences in mileage per week do not explain differences in incidence rate between these studies. In conclusion, caution must be taken when comparing annual incidence rates of different studies. Methodological issues are at least as important as aetiological factors. Study populations may refer to different selections of the universe of the running population. The lengths of observation periods and 'running injury' definitions may differ from one study to another.
“发病率”一词在文献中有多种不同的解释。跑步损伤流行病学应包括基于分母的发病率，即1年内观察到的新损伤数量与有风险的跑步者人群相关。在从文献中选取的10项基于分母发病率的研究中，受伤跑步者的年发病率在24%至65%之间变化。比较不同研究中基于分母的发病率需要讨论分母和分子；即研究人群和跑步损伤的定义。损伤定义因研究而异。研究人群是整个跑步人群中的特定亚组，且因研究而异。亚组的来源可能不同：志愿者、邮件列表中的跑步者或公路赛参赛者。受监督的志愿者中的发病率高于列出的跑步者，且这两组的发病率均高于比赛参赛者。从跑步人群总体中进行选择以及所使用的损伤定义是方法学问题。发病率与易患跑步损伤因素的患病率相关。有一些病因因素的作用得到了一致的流行病学支持；即每周跑量更多、既往跑步损伤、跑步速度更快以及跑步经验较少。每周跑量更多可能是最强的预测因素。在所选的损伤研究中，不同研究人群的每周跑量各不相同。每周跑量的差异并不能解释这些研究之间发病率的差异。总之，在比较不同研究的年发病率时必须谨慎。方法学问题至少与病因因素同样重要。研究人群可能指的是跑步人群总体中的不同选择。观察期的长度和 “跑步损伤” 的定义可能因研究而异。
