ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2026
Biomechanical Responses to Level, Uphill, and Downhill Running Segments During an Outdoor Marathon.
Article in European journal of sport science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated running biomechanics across varying slopes during a mass-participation road marathon. Although laboratory studies suggest specific gait modifications occur in response to varying slopes, data from outdoor competitive environments remain scarce. We monitored 39 distance runners using shoe-mounted inertial measurement units to capture spatiotemporal, footstrike, and wearable-derived loading data across level, uphill (+3%), and downhill (-3%) segments of the 2025 Hong Kong Marathon. Results demonstrated slope-dependent modifications, with uphill running characterized by slower velocity (-0.29 m/s, Cohen's d = -1.98), shorter stride length (-0.15 m, d = -1.55), and lower cadence (-5.00 steps/min, d = -1.21) compared with level ground (p < 0.001). Kinematically, participants adopted a more anterior footstrike pattern uphill (d = 1.48) and a more posterior footstrike pattern downhill (d = -0.62) relative to level running (p < 0.05). Analysis of wearable-derived loading metrics showed no differences across slope conditions once running velocity was included as a covariate. Running velocity emerged as the primary determinant of braking, impact, and shock accelerations, indicating that differences in self-selected running velocity may contribute substantially to loading responses across varying slopes during overground running. These findings highlight a discrepancy between controlled laboratory simulations and competitive overground running, emphasizing the role of wearable technology in capturing ecologically valid gait alterations to different terrains.
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.