Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34789828›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Influence of advanced shoe technology on the top 100 annual performances in men's marathon from 2015 to 2019.

Víctor Rodrigo-Carranza, Fernando González-Mohíno, Jesús Santos Del Cerro, Jordan Santos-Concejero, José María González-Ravé

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Víctor Rodrigo-CarranzaSport Training Laboratory, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida Carlos III S/N, 45071, Toledo, Spain.
Fernando González-MohínoSport Training Laboratory, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida Carlos III S/N, 45071, Toledo, Spain.
Jesús Santos Del CerroDepartment of Statistics, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Jordan Santos-ConcejeroDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria‑Gasteiz, Spain.
José María González-RavéSport Training Laboratory, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida Carlos III S/N, 45071, Toledo, Spain. josemaria.gonzalez@uclm.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The NIKE Vaporfly shoe was introduced in May 2017 as part of the original #Breaking2 Project (an event aimed to run the first marathon under 2 h). This new advanced shoe technology (NAST) changed the footwear design conception. The aim of this study was (i) to analyse the effect of NAST in men's marathon performance, (ii) to analyse whether the changes in the environmental constraints (temperature and wind) and orography of the marathons, age and birthplace of the runners has changed from 2015 to 2019 and (iii) to analyse the impact of NAST on the historical 50 best performances. Data from top-100 men's marathon performances were collected in that timeframe. The shoes used by the athletes were identified (in 91.8% of the cases) by publicly available photographs. External and environmental conditions of each marathon and age and birthplace of the runners were also analysed. Marathon performances improved from 2017 onwards between 0.75 and 1.50% compared to 2015 and 2016 (p < 0.05). In addition, the improvement was greater in the upper deciles than in the lower ones (p < 0.001). Runners wearing NAST ran ~ 1% faster in marathon compared to runners that did not use it (p < 0.001). When conducting an individual analysis of athletes who ran with and without NAST, 72.5% of the athletes who completed a marathon wearing NAST improved their performance by 0.68% (p < 0.01). External and environmental conditions, age or birthplace of runners seems not to have influenced this performance improvement. NAST has had a clear impact on marathon performance unchanged in the environmental constraints (temperature and wind), orography, age, and birthplace of the runners but with differences between venues.

Identifiers

PMID34789828
PMCPMC8599511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.