↓ Skip to main content

The design of the run Clever randomized trial: running volume, −intensity and running-related injuries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The design of the run Clever randomized trial: running volume, −intensity and running-related injuries
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1020-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Ramskov, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen, Henrik Sørensen, Erik Parner, Martin Lind, Sten Rasmussen

Abstract

Injury incidence and prevalence in running populations have been investigated and documented in several studies. However, knowledge about injury etiology and prevention is needed. Training errors in running are modifiable risk factors and people engaged in recreational running need evidence-based running schedules to minimize the risk of injury. The existing literature on running volume and running intensity and the development of injuries show conflicting results. This may be related to previously applied study designs, methods used to quantify the performed running and the statistical analysis of the collected data. The aim of the Run Clever trial is to investigate if a focus on running intensity compared with a focus on running volume in a running schedule influences the overall injury risk differently. The Run Clever trial is a randomized trial with a 24-week follow-up. Healthy recreational runners between 18 and 65 years and with an average of 1-3 running sessions per week the past 6 months are included. Participants are randomized into two intervention groups: Running schedule-I and Schedule-V. Schedule-I emphasizes a progression in running intensity by increasing the weekly volume of running at a hard pace, while Schedule-V emphasizes a progression in running volume, by increasing the weekly overall volume. Data on the running performed is collected by GPS. Participants who sustain running-related injuries are diagnosed by a diagnostic team of physiotherapists using standardized diagnostic criteria. The members of the diagnostic team are blinded. The study design, procedures and informed consent were approved by the Ethics Committee Northern Denmark Region (N-20140069). The Run Clever trial will provide insight into possible differences in injury risk between running schedules emphasizing either running intensity or running volume. The risk of sustaining volume- and intensity-related injuries will be compared in the two intervention groups using a competing risks approach. The trial will hopefully result in a better understanding of the relationship between the running performed and possible differences in running-related injury risk and the injuries developed. Clinical Trials NCT02349373 - January 23, 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 157 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 18%
Student > Bachelor 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 40 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 19%
Sports and Recreations 28 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 48 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,396,346
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#489
of 4,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,990
of 298,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#16
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.