ArticleTranslational sports medicine2025
Running Shoe Recommendations Based on Gait Analysis Improve Perceptions of Comfort, Performance and Injury Risk: A Single-Blind Randomised Crossover Trial.
Article in Translational sports medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carbon monoxide and other "tricks" in sports: does the winner take it all?Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Running Shoe Recommendations Based on Gait Analysis Improve Perceptions of Comfort, Performance and Injury Risk: A Single-Blind Randomised Crossover Trial.Translational sports medicine · 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
Objectives: We examined how shoe recommendation based on gait analysis influences subjective perceptions of comfort, performance and injury reduction in runners while monitoring spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters. Design: Single-blind crossover randomised controlled trial with repeated measures. Method: Twenty-one women runners completed a clinical gait analysis and four 5-min treadmill trials at a self-selected comfortable speed sequentially in their own shoes (OS), the first experimental shoes (randomised), their OS, and the second experimental shoes (randomised). The two experimental shoes were identical except for their colour (randomised) and were presented to runners as either a 'basic' shoe or, deceptively, a 'gait-matched' shoe selected for them based on the clinical gait analysis conducted. Results: Running Comfort Assessment Tool (RUN-CAT) scores and 100 mm visual analogue scale ratings of subjective comfort, performance and injury reduction differed significantly between own and experimental shoes ( Conclusions: Shoe recommendation and description can significantly affect subjective shoe comfort and overall preferences without significantly altering spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters. Runners should be cautious while choosing shoes based on recommendations and descriptors derived from gait analysis or based solely on perceived comfort as runners' subjective perceptions can be artificially manipulated.
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.