ArticlePloS one2017
Measurement agreement between a newly developed sensing insole and traditional laboratory-based method for footstrike pattern detection in runners.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Center of Pressure Measurement Accuracy via Insoles with a Reduced Pressure Sensor Number during Gaits.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of intrinsic foot muscle morphology and isometric strength among runners with different strike patterns.PloS one · 2023Article
- Foot Strike Angle Prediction and Pattern Classification Using LoadsolTM Wearable Sensors: A Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Difference in the running biomechanics between preschoolers and adults.Brazilian journal of physical therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study introduced a novel but simple method to continuously measure footstrike patterns in runners using inexpensive force sensors. Two force sensing resistors were firmly affixed at the heel and second toe of both insoles to collect the time signal of foot contact. A total of 109 healthy young adults (42 males and 67 females) were recruited in this study. They ran on an instrumented treadmill at 0°, +10°, and -10° inclinations and attempted rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot landings using real time visual biofeedback. Intra-step strike index and onset time difference between two force sensors were measured and analyzed with univariate linear regression. We analyzed 25,655 footfalls and found that onset time difference between two sensors explained 80-84% of variation in the prediction model of strike index (R-squared = 0.799-0.836, p<0.001). However, the time windows to detect footstrike patterns on different surface inclinations were not consistent. These findings may allow laboratory-based gait retraining to be implemented in natural running environments to aid in both injury prevention and performance enhancement.
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.