The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun Run “In Training” clinics
Open accessAbstract
Objectives:Seventeen running training clinics were investigated to determine the number of injuries that occur in a running programme designed to minimise the injury rate for athletes training for a 10 km race. The relative contributions of factors associated with injury were also reported. Methods:A total of 844 primarily recreational runners were surveyed in three trials on the 4th, 8th, and 12th week of the 13 week programme of the “In Training” running clinics. Participants were classified as injured if they experienced at least a grade 1 injury—that is, pain only after running. Logistic regression modelling and odds ratio calculation were performed for each sex using the following predictor variables: age, body mass index (BMI), previous aerobic activity, running frequency, predominant running surface, arch height, running shoe age, and concurrent cross training. Results:Age played an important part in injury in women: being over 50 years old was a risk factor for overall injury, and being less than 31 years was protective against new injury. Running only one day a week showed a non-significant trend for injury risk in men and was a significant risk factor in women and overall injury. A BMI of > 26 kg/m 2 was reported as protective for men. Running shoe age also significantly contributed to the injury model. Half of the participants who reported an injury had had a previous injury; 42% of these reported that they were not completely rehabilitated on starting the 13 week training programme. An injury rate of 29.5% was recorded across all training clinics surveyed. The knee was the most commonly injured site. Conclusions:Although age, BMI, running frequency (days a week), and running shoe age were associated with injury, these results do not take into account an adequate measure of exposure time to injury, running experience, or previous injury and should thus be viewed accordingly. In addition, the reason for the discrepancy in injury rate between these 17 clinics requires further study.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Jones, B. H., & Knapik, J. J. (1999) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.2165/00007256-199927020-00004 · Cited by 306
Cited by
Soligard, T., Schwellnus, M., Alonso, J.-M., Bahr, R., Clarsen, B., Dijkstra, H. P., Gabbett, T., Gleeson, M., Hägglund, M., Hutchinson, M. R., et al. (2016) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096581 · Cited by 1,041
Schwellnus, M., Soligard, T., Alonso, J.-M., Bahr, R., Clarsen, B., Dijkstra, H. P., Gabbett, T. J., Gleeson, M., Hägglund, M., Hutchinson, M. R., et al. (2016) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096572 · Cited by 836
(2019) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 166
Metadata
- Authors
- Taunton, J. E., Ryan, M. B., Clement, D. B., McKenzie, D. C., Lloyd-Smith, D. R., & Zumbo, B. D.
- Venue
- British Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 239-244
- ISSN
- 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-0480
- OpenAlex
- W2137026783
- Cited by
- 432
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun Run “In Training” clinics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjsm.37.3.239
- The paper
- Taunton, J. E., Ryan, M. B., Clement, D. B., McKenzie, D. C., Lloyd-Smith, D. R., & Zumbo, B. D. (2003). A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun Run “In Training” clinics. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.37.3.239
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.