Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment

From: Incidence of Running-Related Injuries Per 1000 h of running in Different Types of Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  Criteria for assessing risk of bias
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Novice runners
 Bovens et al. [25] * * * 0 * * * *
 Bredeweg et al. [24] RCT * * * 0 * 0 0 0
 Buist et al. [11] * * * 0 0 0 0 0
 Buist et al. [20] RCT * * * 0 0 0 0 *
 Nielsen et al. [26] * * * * * * * *
Recreational runners
 Jakobsen et al. [12] RCT * * * 0 * * * 0
 Malisoux et al. [14] * * * * * 0 * *
 Theisen et al. [15] RCT * * 0 * * * * *
 Van Mechelen et al. [28] RCT * * * 0 * * * 0
 Wen et al. [23] * * * 0 0 0 * *
Ultra-marathoners
 Krabak et al. [21] * * * * 0 * 0 *
Track and field athletes
 Bennell et al. [22] * * * * * * * *
 Lysholm et al. [19] * * * * 0 * * 0
  1. Only studies providing estimates of the incidence of running-related injuries per 1000 h were assessed for risk of bias. The criteria adopted to assess risk of bias were: (1) description of runners or type of runner; (2) definition of the running-related injury; (3) representativeness of the exposed cohort; (4) ascertainment of exposure; (5) demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study; (6) assessment of outcome; (7) was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur?; (8) adequacy of follow-up of cohorts
  2. RCT randomised controlled trial
  3. * A study was awarded a star for every criterion it fulfilled. The more stars the higher quality