ArticlePloS one2026
Running style and stability during uphill running are largely preserved with increasing shoe sole thickness.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advanced footwear technology (AFT) shoes incorporate increased sole thickness and compliant midsole materials that may alter running biomechanics. While these effects have been widely studied during level running, little is known about how sole thickness influences running style and stability during uphill running. This study examined the effects of two AFT shoes differing in sole thickness (35 mm-AFT35; 50 mm-AFT50) and a traditional control shoe (27 mm-CON27) on running style and stability during uphill running. Seventeen experienced male runners performed treadmill running at a 10% incline at 6.5 and 10 km/h in three shoe conditions. Running style was assessed using duty factor, normalized step frequency, center-of-mass oscillation, vertical and leg stiffness, and lower-limb joint kinematics. Running stability was evaluated using local dynamic stability via the maximum Lyapunov exponent and detrended fluctuation analysis of stride time. Duty factor and normalized step frequency did not differ between shoes. However, AFT shoes showed greater center-of-mass oscillation (p = 0.004), and lower vertical stiffness (p = 0.022) compared to CON27. Joint kinematics revealed significant shoe effects at the ankle (p = 0.001), particularly increased dorsiflexion and eversion in AFT conditions. Running stability showed only minor changes. Local dynamic stability differed at the trunk (p = 0.027), with reduced stability in AFT50 compared with CON27 (p = 0.006), while global stability remained unchanged. No shoe × speed interactions were observed for any variable. Overall, uphill running style and stability remained largely preserved across shoe conditions, suggesting that sole thickness alone had limited influence.
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.