Trial reportEuropean journal of sport science2025
Association of Shoe Cushioning Perception and Comfort With Injury Risk in Leisure-Time Runners: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomised Trial.
Trial report in European journal of sport science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03115437 (Role of Shoe Cushioning, Body Mass and Running Biomechanics on Injury Risk), which is not on this 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.
Role of Shoe Cushioning, Body Mass and Running Biomechanics on Injury Risk: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association of Shoe Cushioning Perception and Comfort With Injury Risk in Leisure-Time Runners: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomised Trial.European journal of sport science · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The attenuation of impact forces was related to lower injury risk. However, runners cannot easily assess these biomechanics when testing new running shoes. Alternatively, the comfort filter has been suggested as a new paradigm relating running shoes and injury risk. This secondary analysis of a large randomised trial aimed to investigate whether the perception of cushioning and global appreciation of running shoes were associated with injury risk. Running exposure and injury data were prospectively collected in healthy recreational runners over 6 months. Study participants completed a questionnaire during follow-up on shoe cushioning perception at the heel, ideal shoe cushioning level at the heel and global appreciation of the study shoe using numerical rating scales. Values were subsequently categorised in tertiles. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate adjusted hazard rate ratios (HRs). The analysis includes 527 participants (35.3% females), and 60 of them reported at least one running-related injury. Compared to the reference group (first tertile), participants with perception of moderate shoe cushioning (HR [95% CI] = 0.35 [0.19-0.66]) and those with perception of high shoe cushioning (HR = 0.24 [0.10-0.57]) had a lower injury risk. Similarly, participants with medium values (HR = 0.44 [0.25-0.78]) and highest values (HR = 0.33 [0.16-0.68]) for perceived-ideal cushioning difference had a lower injury risk. Injury risk was also lower in participants with the highest global appreciation of the shoe (HR = 0.47 [0.26-0.85]). This study shows that greater perceived shoe cushioning and global appreciation are associated with lower injury risk, which suggests that cushioning perception, and potentially comfort filter, may be a valuable approach for shoe selection to prevent running-related injuries.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03115437, 11/04/2017.
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.