ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Carbon plates in running shoes biomechanics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carbon-plated running shoes (CPS) combine compliant foams with embedded carbon-fiber plates to increase longitudinal bending stiffness and potentially improve running economy. However, whether CPS systematically alter running biomechanics compared with non-carbon-plated shoes (NCPS) remains unclear. Objective: To quantify the biomechanical effects of CPS in healthy adults. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of crossover trials comparing CPS vs. NCPS was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251058609). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, and Embase (July 2025). Eligible studies included healthy adults (18-70 years) running in CPS and NCPS. Outcomes were step frequency (steps·min Results: Fifteen studies were included. No significant differences were observed between CPS and NCPS for leg stiffness (SMD = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.23; Conclusion: CPS do not produce consistent changes in joint power or leg stiffness compared with NCPS. Biomechanical adaptations appear subtle, with possible distal joint effects but no systematic redistribution of lower-limb mechanics. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD420251058609.
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.