Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in sports injury research:authors-please report the compliance with the intervention

Background In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aim to prevent sports injuries, the intention-to-treat principle is a recommended analysis method and one emphasised in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement that guides quality reporting of such trials. However, an important element of injury prevention trials-compliance with the intervention-is not always well-reported. The purpose of the present educational review was to describe the compliance during follow-up in eight large-scale sports injury trials and address compliance issues that surfaced. Then, we discuss how readers and researchers might consider interpreting results from intention-to-treat analyses depending on the observed compliance with the intervention. Methods Data from seven different randomised trials and one experimental study were included in the present educational review. In the trials that used training programme as an intervention, we defined full compliance as having completed the programme within +/- 10% of the prescribed running distance (ProjectRun21 (PR21), RUNCLEVER, Start 2 Run) or time-spent-running in minutes (Groningen Novice Running (GRONORUN)) for each planned training session. In the trials using running shoes as the intervention, full compliance was defined as wearing the prescribed running shoe in all running sessions the participants completed during follow-up. Results In the trials that used a running programme intervention, the number of participants who had been fully compliant was 0 of 839 (0%) at 24-week follow-up in RUNCLEVER, 0 of 612 (0%) at 14-week follow-up in PR21, 12 of 56 (21%) at 4-week follow-up in Start 2 Run and 8 of 532 (1%) at 8-week follow-up in GRONORUN. In the trials using a shoe-related intervention, the numbers of participants who had been fully compliant at the end of follow-up were 207 of 304 (68%) in the 21 week trial, and 322 of 423 (76%), 521 of 577 (90%), 753 of 874 (86%) after 24-week follow-up in the other three trials, respectively. Conclusion The proportion of runners compliant at the end of follow-up ranged from 0% to 21% in the trials using running programme as intervention and from 68% to 90% in the trials using running shoes as intervention. We encourage sports injury researchers to carefully assess and report the compliance with intervention in their articles, use appropriate analytical approaches and take compliance into account when drawing study conclusions. In studies with low compliance, G-estimation may be a useful analytical tool provided certain assumptions are met

Time-to-event analysis for sports injury research part 2: Time-varying outcomes

BACKGROUND: Time-to-event modelling is underutilised in sports injury research. Still, sports injury researchers have been encouraged to consider time-to-event analyses as a powerful alternative to other statistical methods. Therefore, it is important to shed light on statistical approaches suitable for analysing training load related key-questions within the sports injury domain. CONTENT: In the present article, we illuminate: (i) the possibilities of including time-varying outcomes in time-to-event analyses, (ii) how to deal with a situation where different types of sports injuries are included in the analyses (ie, competing risks), and (iii) how to deal with the situation where multiple subsequent injuries occur in the same athlete. CONCLUSION: Time-to-event analyses can handle time-varying outcomes, competing risk and multiple subsequent injuries. Although powerful, time-to-event has important requirements: researchers are encouraged to carefully consider prior to any data collection that five injuries per exposure state or transition is needed to avoid conducting statistical analyses on time-to-event data leading to biased results. This requirement becomes particularly difficult to accommodate when a stratified analysis is required as the number of variables increases exponentially for each additional strata included. In future sports injury research, we need stratified analyses if the target of our research is to respond to the question: ‘how much change in training load is too much before injury is sustained, among athletes with different characteristics?’ Responding to this question using multiple time-varying exposures (and outcomes) requires millions of injuries. This should not be a barrier for future research, but collaborations across borders to collecting the amount of data needed seems to be an important step forward

Time-to-event analysis for sports injury research part 1: Time-varying exposures

BACKGROUND: ‘How much change in training load is too much before injury is sustained, among different athletes?’ is a key question in sports medicine and sports science. To address this question the investigator/practitioner must analyse exposure variables that change over time, such as change in training load. Very few studies have included time-varying exposures (eg, training load) and time-varying effect-measure modifiers (eg, previous injury, biomechanics, sleep/stress) when studying sports injury aetiology. AIM: To discuss advanced statistical methods suitable for the complex analysis of time-varying exposures such as changes in training load and injury-related outcomes. CONTENT: Time-varying exposures and time-varying effect-measure modifiers can be used in time-to-event models to investigate sport injury aetiology. We address four key-questions (i) Does time-to-event modelling allow change in training load to be included as a time-varying exposure for sport injury development? (ii) Why is time-to-event analysis superior to other analytical concepts when analysing training-load related data that changes status over time? (iii) How can researchers include change in training load in a time-to-event analysis? and, (iv) Are researchers able to include other time-varying variables into time-to-event analyses? We emphasise that cleaning datasets, setting up the data, performing analyses with time-varying variables and interpreting the results is time-consuming, and requires dedication. It may need you to ask for assistance from methodological peers as the analytical approaches presented this paper require specialist knowledge and well-honed statistical skills. CONCLUSION: To increase knowledge about the association between changes in training load and injury, we encourage sports injury researchers to collaborate with statisticians and/or methodological epidemiologists to carefully consider applying time-to-event models to prospective sports injury data. This will ensure appropriate interpretation of time-to-event data

Running more than three kilometers during the first week of a running regimen may be associated with increased risk of injury in obese novice runners

BACKGROUND: Training guidelines for novice runners are needed to reduce the risk of injury. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the risk of injury varied in obese and non‐obese individuals initiating a running program at different weekly distances. METHODS: A volunteer sample of 749 of 1532 eligible healthy novice runners was included in a 3‐week observational explorative prospective cohort study. Runners were categorized into one of six strata based on their body mass index (BMI) (≤30=low; >30=high) and running distance after 1 week (<3 km = low; 3 to 6 km = medium; >6 km = high). Data was collected for three weeks for the six strata. The main outcome measure was running‐related injury. RESULTS: Fifty‐six runners sustained a running‐related injury during the 3‐week data collection. A significantly greater number of individuals with BMI>30 sustained injuries if they ran between 3 to 6 km (cumulative risk difference (CRD) = 14.3% [95%CI: 3.3% to 25.3%], p<0.01) or more than 6 km (CRD = 16.2% [95%CI: 4.4% to 28.0%], p<0.01) the first week than individuals in the reference group (low distance and low BMI). The effect‐measure modification between high running distance and BMI on additive scale was positive (11.7% [‐3.6% to 27.0%], p=0.13). The number of obese individuals needed to change their running distance from high to low to avoid one injury was 8.5 [95%CI: 4.6 to 52]. CONCLUSIONS: Obese individuals were at greater risk of injury if they exceeded 3 km during the first week of their running program. Because of a considerable injury risk compared with their non‐obese peers, individuals with a BMI>30 may be well advised to begin running training with an initial running distance of less than 3 km (1.9 miles) the first week of their running regime. Large‐scale trials are needed to further describe and document this relationship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2

When is a study result important for athletes, clinicians and team coaches/staff?

No abstract available

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in sports injury research: Authors - Please report the compliance with the intervention

Background: In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aim to prevent sports injuries, the intention-to-treat principle is a recommended analysis method and one emphasised in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement that guides quality reporting of such trials. However, an important element of injury prevention trials - compliance with the intervention - is not always well-reported. The purpose of the present educational review was to describe the compliance during follow-up in eight large-scale sports injury trials and address compliance issues that surfaced. Then, we discuss how readers and researchers might consider interpreting results from intention-to-treat analyses depending on the observed compliance with the intervention. Methods: Data from seven different randomised trials and one experimental study were included in the present educational review. In the trials that used training programme as an intervention, we defined full compliance as having completed the programme within ±10% of the prescribed running distance (ProjectRun21 (PR21), RUNCLEVER, Start 2 Run) or time-spent-running in minutes (Groningen Novice Running (GRONORUN)) for each planned training session. In the trials using running shoes as the intervention, full compliance was defined as wearing the prescribed running shoe in all running sessions the participants completed during follow-up. Results: In the trials that used a running programme intervention, the number of participants who had been fully compliant was 0 of 839 (0%) at 24-week follow-up in RUNCLEVER, 0 of 612 (0%) at 14-week follow-up in PR21, 12 of 56 (21%) at 4-week follow-up in Start 2 Run and 8 of 532 (1%) at 8-week follow-up in GRONORUN. In the trials using a shoe-related intervention, the numbers of participants who had been fully compliant at the end of follow-up were 207 of 304 (68%) in the 21 week trial, and 322 of 423 (76%), 521 of 577 (90%), 753 of 874 (86%) after 24-week follow-up in the other three trials, respectively. Conclusion: The proportion of runners compliant at the end of follow-up ranged from 0% to 21% in the trials using running programme as intervention and from 68% to 90% in the trials using running shoes as intervention. We encourage sports injury researchers to carefully assess and report the compliance with intervention in their articles, use appropriate analytical approaches and take compliance into account when drawing study conclusions. In studies with low compliance, G-estimation may be a useful analytical tool provided certain assumptions are met