The Association of Joint Power Kinetic Variables with Running Injuries: A Case-Control Study.
Matt Dewald, Jennifer Dalland, Josie Stockland
PMID 37547840WHAT IT FOUND
When comparing raw averages, hip, knee, and ankle power did not differ between injured and healthy runners.
However, after adjusting for age, sex, and BMI, higher hip power absorption was associated with lower odds of running injury.
Key findings
01There were no significant differences in the means of peak joint power kinetics between injured and non-injured runners.
02In a logistic regression model controlling for demographics, higher hip power absorbed was found to be protective against injuries (odds ratio, .16).
03The model accounted for only 9% of the total variation in injury status, suggesting running injuries are multimodal and not fully explained by these biomechanical variables.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study is a case-control design, so it cannot determine if the biomechanical differences caused the injuries or resulted from them. The logistic regression model explained only 9% of the variation in injury status, meaning most injury risk is driven by factors not measured here. The non-injured control group was smaller (26) than the injured group (96) and had a mean age five years older, which may introduce bias despite statistical adjustment. Participants wore their own shoes and ran at self-selected paces, which adds variability and potential confounding that was not fully controlled. Injury location and specific injury types were not stratified in the analysis due to small subgroup sizes.
Declared interests
None reported in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the association between higher hip power absorption and lower injury odds as proof that training hip power absorption prevents running injuries. The study is retrospective, and the model explains only 9% of injury variance, so this single biomechanical factor is a minor piece of a much larger, multimodal puzzle.