Background: Although corticosteroid injections are an effective treatment for musculoskeletal pathologies, they may not be suitable for all patients. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who received NSAID and corticosteroid injections for various orthopedic conditions. Methods: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model for outcomes presented in three or more studies. Other studies were qualitatively analyzed. Results: A total of 28 articles with 2113 patients were included. A meta-analysis of five studies in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) between subacromial NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections at 1 month [weighted mean difference (WMD) −0.244; 95% CI, −1.232 to 0.745; I², 94.5%]. For patients with knee osteoarthritis, a meta-analysis of three studies demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intraarticular NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections in pain VAS at 1 month (WMD 0.754; 95% CI, −0.413 to 1.921; I², 90.2%) and 3 months (WMD−0.089; 95% CI, −0.345 to 0.166; I², 0%). A review of the studies assessing pain outcomes for hip osteoarthritis, adhesive capsulitis, and plantar fasciitis showed no significant differences between the NSAID and corticosteroid groups. Conclusion: NSAID injections may be safe and effective alternatives to steroid injections, especially in shoulder impingement syndrome and knee osteoarthritis.

In recent years, the surge in sport and exercise participation, particularly in running, has coincided with the widespread adoption of running-related technology, such as fitness trackers. This study investigates the correlation between the use of running-related technology and running-related injuries among recreational and elite long-distance runners. We conducted a quantitative, cross-sectional online survey of 282 adult runners. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Participants, with an average age of 37.4 years, reported varied running experience, with 90.07% utilizing running-related technology during their runs to some degree, primarily smartwatches like Garmin and Apple Watch. Running-related technology users showed a higher likelihood of experiencing running-related injuries compared to non-users (OR = 0.31, p < 0.001). However, those who utilized the metrics obtained from running-related technology to guide their training decisions did not exhibit a higher risk of injury. This nuanced relationship highlights the importance of considering individual training behaviors and the potential psychological impacts of technology on running practices. The study underscores the need for future research integrating biomechanical and psychosocial factors into running-related technology to enhance injury prevention strategies.

Poor baseline reaction time, as measured via the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Test (ImPACT), has been associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk in adult athletes. Our study sought to determine whether the reaction time and impulse control ImPACT test domains differed between ACL injured and uninjured pediatric athletes. A total of 140 high-school aged athletes comprising 70 athletes who went on to sustain an ACL injury between 2012 and 2018 and 70 age- and sex-matched uninjured controls were included in the study. Mean reaction times were similar for the injured (0.67 s) and uninjured (0.66 s) athletes (p = 0.432), and the impulse control scores were also similar for those with (5.67) and without (6.07) an ACL injury (p = 0.611). Therefore, neurocognitive risk factors for sustaining an ACL injury in adults cannot necessarily be extrapolated to adolescent athletes. Further research is needed to understand why differences exist between injury risk in youth and adult athletes.