Trail running injury risk factors: a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review and frequently update the available evidence on injury risk factors and epidemiology of injury in trail running. DESIGN: Living systematic review. Updated searches will be done every 6 months for a minimum period of 5 years. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 March 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that investigated injury risk factors and/or reported the epidemiology of injury in trail running. RESULTS: Nineteen eligible studies were included, of which 10 studies investigated injury risk factors among 2 785 participants. Significant intrinsic factors associated with injury are: more running experience, level A runner and higher total propensity to sports accident questionnaire (PAD-22) score. Previous history of cramping and postrace biomarkers of muscle damage is associated with cramping. Younger age and low skin phototypes are associated with sunburn. Significant extrinsic factors associated with injury are neglecting warm-up, no specialised running plan, training on asphalt, double training sessions per day and physical labour occupations. A slower race finishing time is associated with cramping, while more than 3 hours of training per day, shade as the primary mode of sun protection and being single are associated with sunburn. An injury incidence range 0.7-61.2 injuries/1000 hours of running and prevalence range 1.3% to 90% were reported. The lower limb was the most reported region of injury, specifically involving blisters of the foot/toe. CONCLUSION: Limited studies investigated injury risk factors in trail running. Our review found eight intrinsic and nine extrinsic injury risk factors. This review highlighted areas for future research that may aid in designing injury risk management strategies for safer trail running participation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021240832.

Days until return-to-play differ for sub-categories of acute respiratory tract illness in Super Rugby players: A cross-sectional study over 5 seasons (102,738 player-days).

OBJECTIVES: To document incidence rate and severity of specific sub-categories of respiratory tract illness (RTill) in rugby players during the Super Rugby tournament. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Team physicians completed daily illness logs in 537 professional male rugby players from South African teams participating in the Super Rugby Union tournaments (2013-2017) (1141 player-seasons, 102,738 player-days). The incidence rate (IR: illness episodes/1000 player-days) and severity [%RTill resulting in time-loss, illness burden (IB: days lost to illness/1000 player-days) and days until return-to-play (DRTP)/single illness (mean: 95% Confidence Intervals)] are reported for the following specific sub-categories of RTill: non-infective respiratory tract illness (RTnon-inf), respiratory tract infections (RTinf), influenza-like illness, infective sinusitis, upper respiratory tract infections (URTinf), lower respiratory tract infections (LRTinf). RESULTS: The overall IR of RTill was 2.9 (2.6-3.3). IR was higher for RTinf (2.5; 2.2-2.9) vs. RTnon-inf (0.4; 0.3-0.6) (p < 0.001). For sub-categories the highest IR was in URTinf (1.9; 1.7-2.2), while the % illness causing time-loss was influenza-like illness (100%), LRTinf (91.7%), infective sinusitis (55.6%), and URTinf (49.0%). IB was highest for URTinf (2.0; 1.6-2.5), and the DRTP/single illness was highest for LRTinf (3.2; 2.3-4.4), and influenza-like illness (2.1; 1.6-2.8). CONCLUSIONS: RTinf accounted for >57% of all illness during the Super Rugby tournament, and mostly URTinf. Influenza-like illness. LRTinf caused time-loss in >90% cases. URTinf, LRTinf and influenza-like illness resulted in the highest burden of illness and LRTinf caused the highest DRTP. Prevention strategies should focus on mitigating the risk of RTinf, specifically URTinf, LRTinf and influenza-like illness.

One in four trail running race entrants sustained an injury in the 12 months training preceding the 2019 SkyRun race.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of RRIs among trail runners who entered the 2019 SkyRun races. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: 2019 SkyRun races. PARTICIPANTS: Consent for data analysis was given by 305 of 412 (74%) race entrants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retrospective annual incidence (RRIs/1000 h), point prevalence (%), frequency (%), characteristics (anatomical region, body area, tissue type, pathology type) and injury severity (mean severity score; 95% CI) of RRIs. RESULTS: 28.2% of participants reported at least one RRI. The retrospective annual incidence was 49.5 RRIs per 1000h and the point prevalence was 1.3%. Most injuries occurred in the lower limb (87.3%), with the knee (26.5%), ankle (21.6%), and foot (16.7%) reported as the most frequently injured body areas. Muscle/tendon accounted for 44.1% of tissue type injuries. Tendinopathy (27.5%), joint sprain (19.6%), and muscle injury (15.7%) were the most common pathology types reported. The mean injury severity score was 31.6. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 trail runners reported at least one RRI in the 12 months leading up to a race. RRIs mostly affected the lower limb specifically the knee, ankle and foot. Future research should establish injury risk factors to ultimately develop specific injury prevention strategies.

Nowhere to hide: The significant impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) measures on elite and semi-elite South African athletes.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the perceptions of South African elite and semi-elite athletes on return to sport (RTS); maintenance of physical conditioning and other activities; sleep; nutrition; mental health; healthcare access; and knowledge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Cross- sectional study. METHODS: A Google Forms survey was distributed to athletes from 15 sports in the final phase (last week of April 2020) of the level 5 lockdown period. Descriptive statistics were used to describe player demographic data. Chi-squared tests investigated significance (p<0.05) between observed and expected values and explored sex differences. Post hoc tests with a Bonferroni adjustment were included where applicable. RESULTS: 67% of the 692 respondents were males. The majority (56%) expected RTS after 1-6 months. Most athletes trained alone (61%; p<0.0001), daily (61%; p<0.0001) at moderate intensity (58%; p<0.0001) and for 30-60min (72%). During leisure time athletes preferred sedentary above active behaviour (p<0.0001). Sleep patterns changed significantly (79%; p<0.0001). A significant number of athletes consumed excessive amounts of carbohydrates (76%; p<0.0001; males 73%; females 80%). Many athletes felt depressed (52%), and required motivation to keep active (55%). Most had access to healthcare during lockdown (80%) and knew proceedings when suspecting COVID-19 (92%). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had physical, nutritional and psychological consequences that may impact on the safe RTS and general health of athletes. Lost opportunities and uncertain financial and sporting futures may have significant effects on athletes and the sports industry. Government and sporting federations must support athletes and develop and implement guidelines to reduce the risk in a COVID-19 environment.

How to manage travel fatigue and jet lag in athletes? A systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the management of travel fatigue and jet lag in athlete populations by evaluating studies that have applied non-pharmacological interventions (exercise, sleep, light and nutrition), and pharmacological interventions (melatonin, sedatives, stimulants, melatonin analogues, glucocorticoids and antihistamines) following long-haul transmeridian travel-based, or laboratory-based circadian system phase-shifts. DESIGN: Systematic review Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and non-RCTs including experimental studies and observational studies, exploring interventions to manage travel fatigue and jet lag involving actual travel-based or laboratory-based phase-shifts. Studies included participants who were athletes, except for interventions rendering no athlete studies, then the search was expanded to include studies on healthy populations. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar and SPORTDiscus from inception to March 2019. We assessed included articles for risk of bias, methodological quality, level of evidence and quality of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were included: 8 non-RCTs and 14 RCTs. No relevant travel fatigue papers were found. For jet lag, only 12 athlete-specific studies were available (six non-RCTs, six RCTs). In total (athletes and healthy populations), 11 non-pharmacological studies (participants 600; intervention group 290; four non-RCTs, seven RCTs) and 11 pharmacological studies (participants 1202; intervention group 870; four non-RCTs, seven RCTs) were included. For non-pharmacological interventions, seven studies across interventions related to actual travel and four to simulated travel. For pharmacological interventions, eight studies were based on actual travel and three on simulated travel. CONCLUSIONS: We found no literature pertaining to the management of travel fatigue. Evidence for the successful management of jet lag in athletes was of low quality. More field-based studies specifically on athlete populations are required with a multifaceted approach, better design and implementation to draw valid conclusions. PROSPERO registration number The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42019126852).