Hip and core exercise programme prevents running-related overuse injuries in adult novice recreational runners: a three-arm randomised controlled trial (Run RCT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the efficacy of two exercise interventions in reducing lower extremity (LE) injuries in novice recreational runners. METHODS: Novice runners (245 female, 80 male) were randomised into hip and core (n=108), ankle and foot (n=111) or control (n=106) groups. Interventions were completed before running and included exercise programmes focusing on either (1) hip and core or (2) ankle and foot muscles. The control group performed static stretching exercises. All groups were supervised by a physiotherapist and performed the same running programme. Injuries and running exposure were registered using weekly questionnaires during the 24-week study. Primary outcome was running-related LE injury. RESULTS: The incidence of LE injuries was lower in the hip and core group compared with the control group (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). The average weekly prevalence of overuse injuries was 39% lower (prevalence rate ratio, PRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96), and the prevalence of substantial overuse injuries was 52% lower (PRR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90) in the hip and core group compared with the control group. No significant difference was observed between the ankle and foot group and control group in the prevalence of overuse injuries. A higher incidence of acute injuries was observed in the ankle and foot group compared with the control group (HR 3.60, 95% CI 1.20 to 10.86). CONCLUSION: A physiotherapist-guided hip and core-focused exercise programme was effective in preventing LE injuries in novice recreational runners. The ankle and foot programme did not reduce LE injuries and did not protect against acute LE injuries when compared with static stretching.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".