ArticleScientific reports2025
Enhanced ground reaction force analyses reveal injury-related Biomechanical differences in runners.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ground Reaction Forces and Impact Loading Among Runners with Different Acuity of Tibial Stress Injuries: Advanced Waveform Analysis for Running Mechanics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This three-part study investigated alternative pre-processing techniques to better understand the differences in patterns of ground reaction force (GRF) and load rate (LR) among runners with running-related injury (RRI). 534 runners were assessed on an instrumented treadmill with 3D kinematic data capture. Participants were classified as "injured" or "uninjured" and "rearfoot" (RF) or "non-rearfoot" (non-RF) strikers. The raw net GRF is normalized by time and then averaged across at least ten steps for the left and right foot; a double Gaussian characterizes the biphasic double-mass-spring model of running gait. Six parameters from the Gaussians were used to describe the relative differences and shape change based on injury condition. LRs were calculated using a central difference numerical derivative of the raw normalized net force data. 32% of runners reached peak negative LR (unloading) within the first 20% of stance. Injured RF strikers had 18% higher peak positive LR and 6% shorter time to peak than uninjured RF strikers (p < 0.05). Injured non-RF strikers showed peak negative LR 10% earlier in normalized stance, with a 10% shorter interval between positive and negative peaks (p < 0.05). The magnitude and timing of impact and active phases of GRF waveforms differed in runners with history of tibial stress fractures and current Achilles tendinopathy (p < 0.05). LR and LR timing are important in relation to specific RRI. These alternative pre-processing methods may help improve mechanistic understanding of GRF and LR and identify gait retraining foci for specific injury diagnoses in the future.
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.