Trial reportJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2006
Do shock absorbing insoles in recruits undertaking high levels of physical activity reduce lower limb injury? A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Compliance with Sport Injury Prevention Interventions in Randomised Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Pooled it
- Interventions to prevent sports related injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2014Pooled it
- Interventions for preventing lower limb soft-tissue running injuries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Interventions for preventing hamstring injuries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Trial
- A preliminary study on the effects of insole material and foot strike pattern on shock attenuation during running.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Running shoe cushioning properties at the rearfoot and forefoot and their relationship to injury: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial on leisure-time runners.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators to implementation of musculoskeletal injury mitigation programmes for military service members around the world: a scoping review.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2023Article
- Epidemiology of musculoskeletal injury in military recruits: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Can a shoe-mounted IMU identify the effects of orthotics in ways comparable to gait laboratory measurements?Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023Article
- The biomechanical effects of insoles with different cushioning on the knee joints of people with different body mass index grades.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Running-Related Injury From an Engineering, Medical and Sport Science Perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Firm insoles effectively reduce hemolysis in runners during long distance running - a comparative study.Sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation, therapy & technology : SMARTT · 2011Article
- Does shoe insole modification prevent stress fractures? A systematic review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2009Article
- Learning to love big brother.British journal of sports medicine · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the benefits, if any, of the use of shock absorbing insoles in reducing lower limb injury among Air Force recruits, and to assess the differences, if any, in the efficacy of two commonly available shock absorbing insoles.
designRandomized controlled trial.
settingRAF Halton, UK. Site of all basic training for RAF personnel.
participants1205 recruits participating in basic training between 17 September 2003 and 7 April 2004.
interventionsParticipants were randomized to receive either standard issue Saran non-shock absorbing insoles, or shock absorbing Sorbothane or Poron insoles, on a 1:1:1 basis.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was withdrawal from training for lower limb injury. The two primary comparisons were shock absorbing insole versus non-shock absorbing insole, and Sorbothane versus Poron (comparison of different shock absorbing insoles). Secondary outcomes were medical withdrawals for reasons other than those qualifying for the primary outcome measure.
resultsWhen comparing the non-shock absorbing insole to the shock absorbing insoles 72/401 participants (18.0%) allocated to Saran insoles were removed from training because of a qualifying lower limb injury, compared with 149/804 (18.5%) allocated to the shock absorbing insole (Sorbothane or Poron), odds ratio 1.04 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.44; P=0.87). When comparing the two shock absorbing insole 73/421 participants (17.3%) randomized to Sorbothane were removed from training because of a qualifying lower limb injury, compared with 76/383 for Poron (19.8%), odds ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; P=0.37).
conclusionsSimilar rates of lower limb injuries were observed for all insoles (shock absorbing and non-shock absorbing) in the trial. The trial provides no support for a change in policy to the use of shock absorbing insoles for military recruits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.