Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26746907›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of sports medicine2016

Injury risk in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding.

Laurent Malisoux, Nicolas Chambon, Nicolas Delattre, Nils Gueguen, Axel Urhausen, Daniel Theisen

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of sports medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Laurent MalisouxSports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Nicolas ChambonDecathlon, Movement Sciences Department, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
Nicolas DelattreDecathlon, Movement Sciences Department, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
Nils GueguenDecathlon, Movement Sciences Department, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
Axel UrhausenSports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg Sports Clinic, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Daniel TheisenSports Medicine Research Laboratory, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Luxembourg Institute of Health · LUCentre Hospitalier de Luxembourg · LU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimThis randomised controlled trial investigated if the usage of running shoes with a motion control system modifies injury risk in regular leisure-time runners compared to standard shoes, and if this influence depends on foot morphology.

methodsRecreational runners (n=372) were given either the motion control or the standard version of a regular running shoe model and were followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Foot morphology was analysed using the Foot Posture Index method. Cox regression analyses were used to compare injury risk between the two groups, based on HRs and their 95% CIs, controlling for potential confounders. Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of motion control system in runners with supinated, neutral and pronated feet.

resultsThe overall injury risk was lower among the participants who had received motion control shoes (HR=0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85) compared to those receiving standard shoes. This positive effect was only observed in the stratum of runners with pronated feet (n=94; HR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84); there was no difference in runners with neutral (n=218; HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37) or supinated feet (n=60; HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.73). Runners with pronated feet using standard shoes had a higher injury risk compared to those with neutral feet (HR=1.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.22).

conclusionsThe overall injury risk was lower in participants who had received motion control shoes. Based on secondary analysis, those with pronated feet may benefit most from this shoe type.

Indexed as

ShoesAdultAthletic InjuriesEquipment DesignFemaleFootHumansMaleMiddle AgedPosturePronationRunningSupinationFootInjuryRunning shoesSporting injuries

Identifiers

PMID26746907
PMCPMC4853529
OpenAlexW2258444557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.