Rabello Rodrigo, Desai Gauri A, Gruber Allison H
HH Morris Human Performance Laboratories, Department of Kinesiology, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Sports Med Open. 2025 Jun 8;11(1):69. doi: 10.1186/s40798-025-00870-5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PROSPERO ID CRD42022296734. Registered 28 September 2022-Retrospectively registered, https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=149714 .
由于步态生物力学存在差异,与经验丰富的跑步者相比,经验不足的跑步者被认为更容易遭受更多与跑步相关的损伤(RRIs)。然而,跑步经验对生物力学的影响仍无定论。本系统评价的目的是研究关于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。基于研究结果,提出了一种跑步经验的分类方法。
按照PRISMA指南(PROSPERO_ID CRD42022296734)和PICO框架,在五个常见数据库中检索相关文章。纳入对18至65岁成年人跑步步态生物力学中跑步经验的统计效应进行报道的同行评审研究。排除标准为:患有当前疾病或有症状性损伤的受试者;仅报道赤足跑步、穿极简主义跑鞋跑步、短跑或上下坡跑步的研究;仅通过与成绩相关的指标分类经验的研究;或未明确跑步经验组定义的研究。使用唐斯和布莱克清单评估偏倚风险。由于研究的异质性,将提取的数据整理成表格并进行描述性综合分析。
纳入了28项研究,共916名受试者。尽管大多数研究在比较中发现了显著性差异,但没有一项比较相似步态变量的研究得到相同的统计结果。经验水平之间比较的一些变量仅在一项研究中进行了检验。各研究之间的经验分类标准不一致;经验丰富组的截断值范围为2至10年和/或每周15至50公里,经验不足组的截断值范围为0.5至3年和/或每周0至20公里。由于纳入研究之间存在异质性,无法进行荟萃分析。
目前的文献中,经验对跑步力学的影响并不一致。缺乏一致的研究结果可能是由于用于将跑步者分类为经验组的标准异质性以及所研究变量的不一致性。需要进行重复研究、采用异质性研究设计和纵向研究,以确定随着跑步者经验的增加,跑步生物力学是否会发生变化以及如何变化。必须从标准的经验分类标准开始进行异质性研究设计,以便确定经验对跑步生物力学的影响。我们提出了一种更新的分类法,从暴露、表现和意图三个方面将跑步者分为不同组别。
PROSPERO ID CRD42022296734。2022年9月28日注册——追溯注册,https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=149714 。