ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2026
Do Commercially Available Insoles Meaningfully Change Reported Comfort and Biomechanics During One Day of Wear?
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIdentifying meaningful changes in comfort and any underpinning biomechanical changes is crucial to understanding differences in perceptions of footwear comfort. Research rarely considers changes in comfort, and rarely reports how meaningful these are. This study aims to utilise a portable biomechanics measurement tool to establish whether commercially available insoles make meaningful changes in comfort and identify any concurrent changes in biomechanics compared with a control whilst worn during a users' normal day. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty participants wore five insole conditions (participants' own shoe, and four commercially available insoles) for a typical day whilst the Runscribe inertial measurement unit (IMU) captured: Ground reaction force (GRF), GRF rate, pronation excursion, pronation velocity, impact shock, braking shock, and total shock. Comfort was measured using a 100 mm visual analogue scale. A pre-defined ± 8.28 mm minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for comfort was used as the threshold of meaningful change to group individuals into comfort classifications: 'more' (47 participants) and 'less' (36 participants). MCID was also defined for biomechanics variables from the RunScribe. Insole conditions were compared between classifications to identify significant and meaningful changes in biomechanics associated with meaningful changes in comfort from the control condition. Paired sample t-tests compared biomechanical parameters from the RunScribe between comfort classifications.
resultsSimilar numbers of individuals reported 'more' and 'less' comfort across conditions. There were only significant reductions in braking shock when individuals reported meaningfully 'less comfort'. The primary result from meaningful change thresholds for biomechanics was meaningful increases in impact shock when comfort was both 'more' and 'less'. DISCUSSION: The measurement approach enabled identification of comfort changes, and underpinning biomechanical differences during one day of wear of insoles. Impact shock was the main contributor to comfort perception, consistent with previous literature. Highlighting impact shock as a potential variable for assessment of interventions in pathological study.
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.