The Effects of Lower Leg Compression Garments on Lower Extremity Sports Injuries, Subjective Fatigue and Biomechanical Variables: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of CGs versus non-CGs (such as regular socks) or versus placebo garments on 1) the incidence of lower extremity sports injuries and 2) subjective ratings of fatigue and biomechanical variables in athletes at participating in any sport that required any level of running performance, given that fatigue-related biomechanical alterations may increase the risk of sports injuries. This study was a systematic review with meta-analyses. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro, and Scopus were searched for eligible studies until 7 July 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for all outcome measures. Twenty-three studies, all with a high risk of bias, were included. Nineteen studies were used in the meta-analyses. No studies focused on the effect of CGs on the incidence of lower extremity sports injuries in athletes. Seventeen studies investigated the effect of CGs on subjective ratings of fatigue, but meta-analysis showed no difference in effectiveness between CGs versus non-CGs (such as regular socks) and versus placebo CGs (low certainty evidence). Because of heterogeneity, pooling of the results was not possible for the biomechanical variables. Nonetheless, low certainty evidence showed no effect of CGs. We identified no evidence for a beneficial or detrimental effect of lower leg CGs on the occurrence of lower extremity sports injuries, subjective ratings of fatigue, or biomechanical variables in athletes at any level of running performance. Based on the variable use of running tests, definitions used for biomechanical variables, and reporting of CG characteristics and more standardized reporting is recommended for future studies evaluating CGs.

Lower extremity compression garments use by athletes: why, how often, and perceived benefit.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the benefits of lower extremity compression garments (CGs) have focused on their effects on post-exercise recovery and performance improvement. Less is known about why athletes actually use CGs, the frequency with which they use them, and perceived benefits from using CGs. The purpose of this study was to investigate which athletes use CGs, why athletes use CGs, when CGs are worn by athletes, and, in case of an injury or injury prevention, for which injuries CGs are used. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 512 athletes who used lower extremity CGs. Athletes completed a questionnaire on the type of CGs they used, and when and why they used them. They also reported their sports participation, past and current sports injuries, and the perceived benefits of using CGs. RESULTS: 88.1% (n=451) of the athletes were endurance athletes and 11.9% (n=61) were non-endurance athletes. Endurance and non-endurance athletes reported running (84.7%, n=382) and obstacle course racing (24.6%, n=15) the most frequently as primary sports, respectively. The most-used CG was the compression sock (59.2%, n=303). In total, 47.5% (n=246) of the athletes used a CG primarily to prevent re-injury and 14.5% (n=74) to reduce symptoms of a current sports injury. Other primary reported aims were primary prevention (13.6%), post-exercise recovery (14.3%), sports performance improvement (8.8%), and to look good (0.2%). The point prevalence of past and current sports injuries among all athletes was 84.2 and 20.2%, respectively. The most common current sports injuries were shin and calf injuries. Many athletes "always" or "often" used their CGs during training (56.8%, n=279) and competitions (72.9%, n=264). Furthermore, almost 90% of the athletes that aimed to prevent re-injury by using CGs reported that CGs contributed to secondary injury prevention. CONCLUSION: 88% of the CG-users were endurance athletes, of which 85% were runners. All athletes mainly used CGs to prevent injury recurrence, but also to reduce symptoms of a current sports injury. A majority of the athletes reported positive perceived effects from the CGs. CGs were used more during than after sports participation.

Minimally important change and smallest detectable change of the OSTRC questionnaire in half- and full-marathon runners.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the smallest detectable change (SDC), minimally important change (MIC), and factor structure of the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center (OSTRC) questionnaire severity score in half- and full-marathon runners. Data came from a prospective cohort study, the SUcces Measurement and Monitoring Utrecht Marathon (SUMMUM) 2017 study. Two external anchors, the global rating of change (GRC) and global rating of limitations (GRL), were used to classify the running-related injuries (RRI) as truly improved, unchanged, or truly worsened. SDC values were calculated at individual and group levels. MIC values were calculated using the visual anchor-based MIC distribution and mean change methods. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to study the a priori hypothesized factor structure. A total of 132 runners who reported the same RRI on two occasions 2 weeks apart were included in the analysis. SDC values at individual and group levels were ≤35.06 and ≤9.30, respectively. With the visual anchor-based MIC distribution method, the MIC values for RRIs that truly improved according to the GRC and GRL anchors were 13.50 and 18.50, respectively. With the mean change method, the MIC values for RRIs that truly improved according to the GRC and GRL anchors were 15.49 and 45.38, respectively. The CFA confirmed that the OSTRC was a unidimensional questionnaire. The change score of the OSTRC severity score can be used to distinguish between important change and measurement error at a group level using the MIC value 18.50. Because the SDC of the OSTRC severity score was larger than the MIC, it is not advised to use the MIC at an individual level.

Running Themselves Into the Ground? Incidence, Prevalence, and Impact of Injury and Illness in Runners Preparing for a Half or Full Marathon.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence, prevalence, and impact of running-related injuries (RRIs) and illness symptoms in half marathon and marathon runners during the 16-week period before the Utrecht Marathon. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we used the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center questionnaire to register RRIs and illness symptoms every 2 weeks during the 16-week study period. When an injury or illness occurred, questions were added regarding its nature. We calculated the incidence proportion (the number of new cases divided by the number of runners at risk) and the period prevalence (the number of existing and new cases within a 2-week period, divided by the total number of runners at risk during that period). RESULTS: Of the 161 included runners, 9 out of 10 reported an RRI or illness symptom at some time during the study period. In any 2-week period, 5.6% to 14.8% of the runners reported a new RRI, and 6.3% to 13.8% of the runners reported a new illness symptom. The prevalence of RRIs ranged from 29.2% to 43.5%, and the prevalence of illness symptoms ranged from 28.3% to 71.2%. The most prevalent RRIs were in the lower leg (prevalence range, 5.4%-12.3%) and knee (prevalence range, 2.7%-9.3%). The most prevalent illness symptoms were rhinorrhea/sneezing (prevalence range, 3.9%-12.7%) and coughing (prevalence range, 3.9%-11.9%). The incidence and prevalence of illness symptoms peaked at the same time as the influenza-like illness epidemic of the winter of 2015-2016. CONCLUSION: Nine out of every 10 runners reported an RRI or illness symptom in the lead-up to a half or full marathon. In any 2-week period, up to 1 in 7 runners reported a new RRI or illness symptom. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(7):518-528. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8473.

Effectiveness of Oral Pain Medication and Corticosteroid Injections for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To present an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of oral pain medication and corticosteroid injections to treat carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select potential studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the data on pain (visual analog scale), function or recovery, and assessed the methodologic quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results of the included studies. Four reviews and 9 RCTs were included. For oral pain medication, strong and moderate evidence was found for the effectiveness of oral steroids versus placebo in the short term. Moderate evidence was found in favor of oral steroids versus splinting in the short term. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of oral steroids in the long term. For corticosteroid injections, strong evidence was found in favor of a corticosteroid injection versus a placebo injection and moderate evidence was found in favor of corticosteroid injection versus oral steroids in the short term. Also, in the short term, moderate evidence was found in favor of a local versus a systematic corticosteroid injection. Higher doses of corticosteroid injections seem to be more effective in the midterm; however, the benefits of corticosteroid injections were not maintained in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed evidence supports that oral steroids and corticosteroid injections benefit patient with CTS particularly in the short term. Although a higher dose of steroid injections seems to be more effective in the midterm, the benefits of oral pain medication and corticosteroid injections were not maintained in the long term.