Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32444149›Full record

Trial reportJournal of sport and health science2020

Transition to forefoot strike reduces load rates more effectively than altered cadence.

Erin E Futrell, K Douglas Gross, Darcy Reisman, David R Mullineaux, Irene S Davis

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of sport and health science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [The influence of footwear on the human gait].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Erin E FutrellDepartment of Physical Therapy, Springfield College, Springfield, MA 01109, USA; Spaulding National Running Center, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. Electronic address: efutrell@springfieldcollege.edu.
K Douglas GrossDepartment of Physical Therapy, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA 02129, USA.
Darcy ReismanDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19713, USA.
David R MullineauxSchool of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, Brayford Pool, LN6 7TS, UK.
Irene S DavisSpaulding National Running Center, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExcessive vertical impacts at landing are associated with common running injuries. Two primary gait-retraining interventions aimed at reducing impact forces are transition to forefoot strike and increasing cadence. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term effects of 2 gait-retraining interventions aimed at reducing landing impacts.

methodsA total of 39 healthy recreational runners using a rearfoot strike and a cadence of ≤170 steps/min were randomized into cadence (CAD) or forefoot strike (FFS) groups. All participants performed 4 weeks of strengthening followed by 8 sessions of gait-retraining using auditory feedback. Vertical average load rates (VALR) and vertical instantaneous load rates (VILR) were calculated from the vertical ground reaction force curve. Both cadence and foot strike angle were measured using 3D motion analysis and an instrumented treadmill at baseline and at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months post retraining.

resultsANOVA revealed that the FFS group had significant reductions in VALR (49.7%) and VILR (41.7%), and changes were maintained long term. Foot strike angle in the FFS group changed from 14.2° dorsiflexion at baseline to 3.4° plantarflexion, with changes maintained long term. The CAD group exhibited significant reduction only in VALR (16%) and only at 6 months. Both groups had significant and similar increases in cadence at all follow-ups (CAD, +7.2% to 173 steps/min; and FFS, +6.1% to 172 steps/min).

conclusionForefoot strike gait-retraining resulted in significantly greater reductions in VALR and similar increases in cadence compared to cadence gait-retraining in the short and long term. Cadence gait-retraining resulted in small reductions in VALR at only the 6-month follow-up.

Indexed as

AdultAthletic InjuriesBiomechanical PhenomenaFeedback, SensoryFemaleFootGait AnalysisHumansMaleMuscle StrengthMyalgiaResistance TrainingRunningWeight-BearingYoung AdultFoot strikeGait-retrainingPhysical therapyRunningStep rate

Identifiers

PMID32444149
PMCPMC7242218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.