ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Shoe-ground loading responses across three 3D-printed arch-support heights in normal- and high-arched marathon runners: an arch-type-stratified secondary analysis.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: A prior parameter-optimization study identified 9-15-mm support heights at 22%-26% infill as a candidate range for 3D-printed arch-support inserts, but whether responses within this range differ between runners with normal and high arches remains unclear. This arch-type-stratified secondary analysis compared shoe-ground interface loading under Single and 9-, 12-, and 15-mm support conditions at 24% infill and explored the temporal localization of condition-related differences during stance. Methods: The primary balanced analysis included thirty male marathon runners (15 normal arch, 15 high arch), and a sensitivity analysis included all 55 eligible runners (40 normal arch, 15 high arch). A floor-mounted Footscan® system recorded shoe-ground pressure and regional force data. Primary outcomes were maximum regional peak pressure (MaxPP), maximum metatarsal-region peak pressure (MetaPP), midfoot force impulse fraction (MIF), heel force impulse fraction (HIF), and mediolateral impulse index (MLI). Prespecified comparisons used paired or Welch Results: Under Single, none of the five primary outcomes differed between arch groups after FDR correction. In the primary balanced analysis, relative to Single, FDR-supported differences were concentrated in impulse-distribution measures: MIF increased by 17.9%-19.5% in normal-arch runners under 12-24 and 15-24 and by 18.0%-23.0% in high-arch runners across all three supports, whereas MLI decreased by 14.0%-24.0% and 12.0%-19.7%, respectively. In this analysis, no MaxPP or MetaPP comparison met the FDR threshold. In normal arches, MIF was 7.4% higher under 12-24 than 9-24 ( Conclusion: In the primary balanced analysis, condition-related differences were expressed more consistently in MIF and MLI than in peak-pressure measures. Across the balanced and full-cohort analyses, there was insufficient evidence that static arch type systematically modified the height-specific or overall condition-related response pattern. The analyses did not establish overall superiority of either the 12- or 15-mm configuration. Future studies should integrate dynamic arch characteristics, comfort, and longer-term adaptation.
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.