Submited on: 02 Oct 2011 05:12:18 AM GMT
Published on: 02 Oct 2011 07:41:02 AM GMT
 
Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis in Runner
Posted by Dr. Neil A Segal on 06 Dec 2011 07:47:46 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable?
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative?
  • Other Comments:

    Overall: The main limitation of this literature review is that better quality studies are given the same weight as those of lesser quality. This review would have been strengthened by including studies of knee injuries that are known to increase risk for knee osteoarthritis and that may be prevalent among runners. Despite these limitations, the authors’ main conclusion that running at a moderate pace does not appear to be associated with risk for knee osteoarthritis is supported by numerous studies. They are also correct that a faster running pace or an excessive number of miles per week may be associated with an increased risk for knee osteoarthritis. However, the increased exposure to running may increase risk for injuries as well and joint injury is a known potent risk factor for knee osteoarthritis, so further research may be needed to better characterize the relationship.

     

     

    Other:

    • The authors do not acknowledge that the definition of KL grade 2 includes presence of osteophytes, which is referred to in this review as not meeting the criteria for diagnosis of osteoarthritis, although the prevailing definition for osteoarthritis would include KL grade 2.

    • It should be noted that the authors’ conclusions regarding one study in particular (reference #18, Lilly 2011), were stronger than the evidence suggested.

      • The study is cross-sectional in nature and therefore it cannot be concluded from the 15 “mature” runners compared with 15 runners 18-25 years that their “running gaits increase vulnerability of injury to the knee” since it is possible that their running gait could be the result of injuries that lead to knee OA.

      • The evidence presented does not support the last paragraph of the Discussion; for example, in the first sentence, the conclusion about the running gait of mature females.

      • It cannot be concluded that these running gaits are indeed harmful or that these 15 women are representative of all women age 40-60 years.

      • The statement that “forty years of age was found to be the age at which structural changes begin to occur at the joints” does not take into account that the study did not evaluate women age 26-39 and that changes may occur prior to age 40.

    • The authors include a statement about the benefits of running (i.e. emotional benefits) in the abstract conclusion and the main conclusion of the manuscript. This may be true, but this conclusion is not supported by any evidence presented in the presented review of the literature.

    • The study by Cheng (ref #17) was placed under the heading “studies showing an increased risk of knee osteoarthritis in runners”, but as presented, the study appears to include only subjects with pre-existing OA at the time of study enrollment and would only be useful for measuring disease progression, but not disease onset.

    • The paragraph summarizing the studies from Lane et al. could be summarized for clarity and to improve paragraph length.

    • In the same paragraph summarizing the studies of Lane et al., start a new paragraph at “Hohmann et al.”

    • KOOS is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and this should be corrected in the manuscript.

    • In the first paragraph under “Introduction," “likely” should be changed to “possible” in the 2nd to last paragraph.

    • In the 2nd paragraph under Results, “present” should be changed to “presence” in the 2nd sentence.

    • In the 3rd paragraph of the Results, the 4th to the last sentence should be changed to “these running gaits increase vulnerability to injury of the knee.”

    • On page 5, in the 1st paragraph after Discussion, the 6th sentence should be changed to correctly spell Dr. Laquesne's name.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    1. Director of the Clinical Osteoarthritis Research Program at an academic medical center.
    2. Have published over 40 peer-reviewed manuscripts reporting original research regarding knee osteoarthritis.
    3. Focus on both epidemiological and interventional studies to advance understanding of risk for knee osteoarthritis and disablement

  • How to cite:  Segal N A. Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis in Runner[Review of the article 'Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis in Runners ' by Sangnil M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001208
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis in Runners
Posted by Dr. Thomas Herchline on 20 Oct 2011 11:17:51 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This is an excellent review of the published literature regarding running and risk for osteoarthritis. The conclusions are well supported. 

     

    The authors conclude "Based on this review of the literature, there may be an increased risk for developing OA for those who run at faster paces." It would be helpful if "faster paces" was defined in this review.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Experienced runner (have completed > 30 marathons)

  • How to cite:  Herchline T .Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis in Runners[Review of the article 'Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis in Runners ' by Sangnil M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(10):WMCRW001027
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse