Search

In a recent randomised trial investigating running shoe cushioning, injury risk was greater in recreational runners who trained in the shoe version with greater cushioning stiffness (Stiff) compared to those using the Soft version. However, vertical impact peak force (VIPF) was lower in the Stiff version. To investigate further the mechanisms involved in the protective effect of greater cushioning, the present study used an intra-subject design and analysed the differences in running kinematics and kinetics between the Stiff and Soft shoe versions on a subsample of 41 runners from the previous trial. Data were recorded in the two shoe conditions using an instrumented treadmill at 10 km.h -1 . VIPF was confirmed to be lower in the Stiff version compared to the Soft version (1.39 ± 0.25 vs. 1.50 ± 0.25 BW, respectively; p  = 0.009, d  = 0.42), but not difference was observed in vertical loading rate ( p  = 0.255 and 0.897 for vertical average and instantaneous loading rate, respectively). Ankle eversion maximal velocity was not different ( p  = 0.099), but the Stiff version induced greater ankle negative work (-0.55 ± 0.09 vs. -0.52 ± 0.10 J.kg -1 ; p  = 0.009, d  = 0.32), maximal ankle negative power (-7.21 ± 1.90 vs. -6.96 ± 1.92 W.kg -1 ; p  = 0.037, d  = 0.13) and maximal hip extension moment (1.25 ± 0.32 vs.1.18 ± 0.30 N.m.kg -1 ; p  = 0.009, d  = 0.22). Our results suggest that the Stiff shoe version is related to increased mechanical burden for the musculoskeletal system, especially around the ankle joint. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437.

Background: Running biomechanics may play a role in running-related injury development, but to date, only a few modifiable factors have been prospectively associated with injury risk., Purpose: To identify risk factors among spatiotemporal and ground-reaction force characteristics in recreational runners and to investigate whether shoe cushioning modifies the association between running biomechanics and injury risk., Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: Recreational runners (N = 848) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in randomly allocated, standardized running shoes (with either hard or soft cushioning). Typical kinetic and spatiotemporal metrics were derived from ground-reaction force recordings. Participants were subsequently followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Cox regression models for competing risk were used to investigate the association between biomechanical risk factors and injury risk, including stratified analyses by shoe version., Results: In the crude analysis, greater injury risk was found for greater step length (subhazard rate ratio [SHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; P = .038), longer flight time (SHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; P = .028), shorter contact time (SHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .030), and lower duty factor (defined as the ratio between contact time and stride time; SHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; P = .005). In the stratified analyses by shoe version, adjusted for previous injury and running speed, lower duty factor was associated with greater injury risk in those using the soft shoes (SHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P = .042) but not in those using the hard shoes (SHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = .348)., Conclusion: Lower duty factor is an injury risk factor, especially for softer shoe use. Contrary to widespread beliefs, vertical impact peak, loading rate, and step rate were not injury risk factors in recreational runners., Registration: NCT03115437 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Abstract In a recent randomized trial including 800+ recreational runners, injury risk was lower in those who received the Soft shoe version compared to those using the Hard version (Hazard ratio = 1.52; 95% Confidence Interval = 1.07-2.16). Here, we investigated the effect of shoe cushioning on ground reaction forces (GRF) and spatiotemporal parameters in the same cohort, with a special focus on Vertical Impact Peak Force (VIPF) and Vertical Instantaneous Loading Rate (VILR). Healthy runners ( n  = 848) randomly received one of two shoe prototypes that differed only in their cushioning properties (Global stiffness: 61 ± 3 and 95 ± 6 N/mm in the Soft and Hard versions, respectively). Participants were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed. GRF data was recorded over 2 min. VIPF was higher in the Soft shoe group compared to the Hard shoe group (1.53 ± 0.21 vs. 1.44 ± 0.23 BW, respectively; p  < 0.001). However, the proportion of steps with detectable VIPF was lower in the Soft shoe group (84 vs. 97%, respectively; p  < 0.001) and Time to VIPF was longer (46.9 ± 8.5 vs. 43.4 ± 7.4 milliseconds, respectively; p  < 0.001). No significant differences were observed for VILR (60.1 ± 13.8 vs. 58.9 ± 15.6 BW/s for Soft and Hard shoe group, respectively; p  = 0.070) or any other kinetic variable. These results show that the beneficial effect of greater shoe cushioning on injury risk in the present cohort is not associated with attenuated VIPF and VILR. These GRF metrics may be inappropriate markers of the shoe cushioning-injury risk relationship, while delayed VIPF and the proportion of steps displaying a VIPF could be more relevant. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437..

Objective: To investigate whether motion-control shoes reduce the risk of pronation-related injuries in recreational runners., Design: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of the effect of shoes on running injuries., Methods: Three hundred seventy-two recreational runners were randomized to receive either standard neutral or motion-control shoes and were followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Running injuries that occurred during this period were registered and classified as pronation-related injuries (Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciopathy, exercise-related lower-leg pain, and anterior knee pain) or other running-related injuries. With the use of competing risk analysis, the relationship between pronation-related and other running-related injuries and shoe type was evaluated by estimating the cause-specific hazard, controlling for other possible confounders like age, sex, body mass index, previous injury, and sport participation pattern., Results: Twenty-five runners sustained pronation-related running injuries and 68 runners sustained other running-related injuries. Runners wearing the motion-control shoes had a lower risk of pronation-related running injuries compared with runners who wore standard neutral shoes (hazard ratio = 0.41; 95% confidence interval: 0.17, 0.98). There was no effect of shoe type (hazard ratio = 0.68; 95% confidence interval: 0.41, 1.10) on the risk of other running-related injuries., Conclusion: Motion-control shoes may reduce the risk of pronation-related running injuries, but did not influence the risk of other running-related injuries. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(3):135-143. Epub 11 Dec 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9710 .

Leisure-time running is one of the most popular forms of physical activity around the world. It can be practiced almost everywhere and requires mainly a pair of "appropriate" running shoes. However, the term appropriate is ambiguous, and the properties of running footwear have always generated hot debates among clinicians, coaches, and athletes, whatever the level of practice. As the main interface between the runner's foot and the ground, the shoe potentially plays an important role in managing repetitive external mechanical loads applied to the musculoskeletal system and, thus, in injury prevention. Consequently, over the last decades, running shoes have been prescribed based on matching shoe features to foot morphology. This strategy aligns with the popular belief that footwear is one of the main extrinsic factors influencing running-related injury risk. Despite a seemingly sound strategy for shoe prescription and constant progress in running-footwear technology, the injury rate remains high. Therefore, our aim in this narrative literature review is to clarify whether the prescription of appropriate footwear to prevent injury in running is evidence based, the result of logical fallacy, or just a myth. The literature presented in this review is based on a nonsystematic search of the MEDLINE database and focuses on work investigating the effect of shoe features on injury risk in runners. In addition, key elements for a proper understanding of the literature on running footwear and injury risk are addressed. In this literature review, we outline (1) the main risk factors and the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of running-related injury, (2) important methodologic considerations for generating high-level evidence, (3) the evidence regarding the influence of running-shoe features on injury risk, (4) future directions for research, and (5) final general recommendations., (© by the National Athletic Trainers' Association, Inc.)

Background: Shoe cushioning is expected to protect runners against repetitive loading of the musculoskeletal system and therefore running-related injuries. Also, it is a common belief that heavier runners should use footwear with increased shock absorption properties to prevent injuries., Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine if shoe cushioning influences the injury risk in recreational runners and whether the association depends on the runner's body mass., Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1., Methods: Healthy runners (n = 848) randomly received 1 of 2 shoe prototypes that only differed in their cushioning properties. Global stiffness was 61.3 ± 2.7 and 94.9 ± 5.9 N/mm in the soft and hard versions, respectively. Participants were classified as light or heavy according to their body mass using the median as a cut-off (78.2 and 62.8 kg in male and female runners, respectively). They were followed over 6 months regarding running activity and injury (any physical complaint reducing/interrupting running activity for at least 7 days). Data were analyzed through time-to-event models with the subhazard rate ratio (SHR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) as measures of association. A stratified analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of shoe cushioning on the injury risk in lighter and heavier runners., Results: The runners who had received the hard shoes had a higher injury risk (SHR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.07-2.16]), while body mass was not associated with the injury risk (SHR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.99-1.01]). However, after stratification according to body mass, results showed that lighter runners had a higher injury risk in hard shoes (SHR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.09-2.98]) while heavier runners did not (SHR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.75-2.03])., Conclusion: The injury risk was higher in participants running in the hard shoes compared with those using the soft shoes. However, the relative protective effect of greater shoe cushioning was found only in lighter runners., Registration: NCT03115437 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Objective: To discuss the interpretability of non-causal associations to sports injury development exemplified via the relationship between navicular drop (ND) and running-related injury (RRI) in novice runners using neutral shoes., Design: 1-year prospective cohort study., Setting: Denmark., Participants: 926 novice runners, representing 1852 feet, were included., Main Outcome Measure: The outcome was "a musculoskeletal complaint of the lower extremity or back caused by running, which restricted the amount of running for at least a week"., Results: Fewer feet with small ND than those feet with a reference ND sustained injuries at 50 (risk difference (RD) = -4.1% [95%CI = -7.9%;-0.4%]) and 100 km (RD = -5.3% [95%CI = -9.9%;-0.7%]). Similarly, fewer feet with a large ND sustained injuries than the feet with a reference drop at 250 (RD = -7.6% [95%CI = -14.9%;-0.3%]) and 500 km (RD = -9.8% [95%CI = -19.1%;-0.4%])., Conclusion: Non-causal associations can help to identify sub-groups of athletes at an increased or decreased risk of sports injury. Based on the current results, those with a small or large navicular drop sustain fewer injuries than those with a reference drop. Importantly, navicular drop does not cause RRIs, but influences the relationship between training load and RRI. This illustrates that non-causal associations are unsuitable to respond to the question: Why do sports injury develop?, (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Repetitive loading of the musculoskeletal system is suggested to be involved in the underlying mechanism of the majority of running-related injuries (RRIs). Accordingly, heavier runners are assumed to be at a higher risk of RRI. The cushioning system of modern running shoes is expected to protect runners again high impact forces, and therefore, RRI. However, the role of shoe cushioning in injury prevention remains unclear. The main aim of this study is to investigate the influence of shoe cushioning and body mass on RRI risk, while exploring simultaneously the association between running technique and RRI risk., Methods and Analysis: This double-blinded randomised controlled trial will involve about 800 healthy leisure-time runners. They will randomly receive one of two running shoe models that will differ in their cushioning properties (ie, stiffness) by ~35%. The participants will perform a running test on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed at baseline. Then they will be followed up prospectively over a 6-month period, during which they will self-report all their sports activities as well as any injury in an internet-based database TIPPS (Training and Injury Prevention Platform for Sports). Cox regression analyses will be used to compare injury risk between the study groups and to investigate the association among training, biomechanical and anatomical risk factors, and injury risk., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the National Ethics Committee for Research (Ref: 201701/02 v1.1). Outcomes will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at international conferences, as well as articles in popular magazines and on specialised websites., Trial Registration Number: NCT03115437, Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: A research partnership agreement was signed between Decathlon and the Luxembourg Institute of Health (LIH). ND is employed at Decathlon SA. Decathlon will not be involved in the collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data. LM, DT and AU may not gain or lose financially from the results of the study in any way., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: While several cross-sectional studies have investigated the acute effects of shoe drop on running biomechanics, the long-term consequences are currently unknown. This study aimed to investigate if the drop of standard cushioned shoes induces specific adaptations in running technique over a six-month period in leisure-time runners., Design: Double-blinded randomised controlled trial., Methods: The participants (n=59) received a pair of shoes with a heel-to-toe drop of 10mm (D10), 6mm (D6) or 0mm (D0) and were followed-up regarding running training over 6 months or 500km, whichever came first. Spatio-temporal variables and kinematics (foot/ground, ankle and knee joint angles) were investigated while running at preferred speed on a treadmill before and after the follow-up., Results: The participants ran 332±178km in the study shoes between pre- and post-tests. There was no shoe version by time interaction for any of the spatio-temporal variables nor for lower limb angles at initial ground contact. A small but significant shoe drop effect was found for knee abduction at mid-stance (p=0.032), as it decreased for the D0 version (-0.3±3.1 vs. -1.3±2.6°) while it increased for the D6 (0.3±2.7 vs. 1.3±3.1°) and D10 version (-0.2±3.2 vs. 0.5±3.1°). However, none of the pairwise comparisons was significant in the post-hoc analysis., Conclusions: Apart from knee abduction at mid-stance, no specific adaptation in spatio-temporal variables and kinematics was found between the three shoe versions during this 6-month follow-up. Thus, shoe drop of standard cushioned shoes does not seem to influence running biomechanics in the long term., (Copyright © 2017 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Modern running shoes are available in a wide range of heel-to-toe drops (ie, the height difference between the forward and rear parts of the inside of the shoe). While shoe drop has been shown to influence strike pattern, its effect on injury risk has never been investigated. Therefore, the reasons for such variety in this parameter are unclear., Purpose: The first aim of this study was to determine whether the drop of standard cushioned running shoes influences running injury risk. The secondary aim was to investigate whether recent running regularity modifies the relationship between shoe drop and injury risk., Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1., Methods: Leisure-time runners (N = 553) were observed for 6 months after having received a pair of shoes with a heel-to-toe drop of 10 mm (D10), 6 mm (D6), or 0 mm (D0). All participants reported their running activities and injuries (time-loss definition, at least 1 day) in an electronic system. Cox regression analyses were used to compare injury risk between the 3 groups based on hazard rate ratios (HRs) and their 95% CIs. A stratified analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of shoe drop in occasional runners (<6 months of weekly practice over the previous 12 months) versus regular runners (≥6 months)., Results: The overall injury risk was not different among the participants who had received the D6 (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.98) or D0 (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.76-1.80) versions compared with the D10 shoes. After stratification according to running regularity, low-drop shoes (D6 and D0) were found to be associated with a lower injury risk in occasional runners (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.23-0.98), whereas these shoes were associated with a higher injury risk in regular runners (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.62)., Conclusion: Overall, injury risk was not modified by the drop of standard cushioned running shoes. However, low-drop shoes could be more hazardous for regular runners, while these shoes seem to be preferable for occasional runners to limit injury risk., (© 2016 The Author(s).)

Pressure-sensitive measuring devices have been identified as appropriate tools for measuring an array of parameters during running. It is unclear which biomechanical characteristics relate to running-related injury (RRI) and which data-processing techniques are most promising to detect this relationship. This systematic review aims to identify pertinent methodologies and characteristics measured using plantar pressure devices, and to summarise their associations with RRI. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ScienceDirect and Scopus were searched up until March 2015. Retrospective and prospective, biomechanical studies on running using any kind of pressure-sensitive device with RRI as an outcome were included. All studies involving regular or recreational runners were considered. The study quality was assessed and the measured parameters were summarised. One low quality, two moderate quality and five high quality studies were included. Five different subdivisions of plantar area were identified, as well as five instants and four phases of measurement during foot-ground contact. Overall many parameters were collated and subdivided as plantar pressure and force, plantar pressure and force location, contact area, timing and stride parameters. Differences between the injured and control group were found for mediolateral and anteroposterior displacement of force, contact area, velocity of force displacement, relative force-time integral, mediolateral force ratio, time to peak force and inter-stride correlative patterns. However, no consistent results were found between studies and no biomechanical risk patterns were apparent. Additionally, conflicting findings were reported for peak force in three studies. Based on these observations, we provide suggestions for improved methodology measurement of pertinent parameters for future studies., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Muscle activation during landing is paramount to stabilise lower limb joints and avoid abnormal movement patterns. Delayed muscle activity onset measured by electromyography (EMG) has been suggested to be associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to test the hypothesis if ACL-injured patients display different results for muscle onset timing during standard deceleration tasks compared to healthy control participants. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and ScienceDirect databases were systematically searched over the period from January 1980 to February 2015, yielding a total of 1461 citations. Six studies meeting inclusion criteria underwent quality assessment, data extraction and re-computing procedures for the meta-analysis. The quality was rated "moderate" for 2 studies and "poor" for 4. Patients included and procedures used were highly heterogeneous. The tasks investigated were single leg hopping, decelerating from running or walking, tested on a total of 102 ACL-injured participants and 86 controls. EMG analyses of the muscles vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, lateral and medial hamstrings revealed trivial and non-significant standardised mean differences (SMD<0.20; p>0.05) between patients and control participants. Furthermore, no differences were found between the contralateral leg of patients and controls for muscle activity onset of the medial and lateral gastrocnemius (SMD<0.20; p>0.05). Based on 3 studies, the involved legs of ACL-injured patients showed overall earlier muscle activity onset compared to control participants for the medial gastrocnemius (SMD = 0.5; p = 0.05). Similar results were found for the lateral gastrocnemius (SMD = 2.1; p<0.001), with a greater effect size but based only on a single study. We conclude that there are no differences between leg muscles of ACL-injured patients and healthy controls regarding the muscle activity onset during landing. However, current evidence is scarce and weak, which highlights the need for further research in this area.

Background/aim: This randomised controlled trial investigated if the usage of running shoes with a motion control system modifies injury risk in regular leisure-time runners compared to standard shoes, and if this influence depends on foot morphology., Methods: Recreational runners (n=372) were given either the motion control or the standard version of a regular running shoe model and were followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Foot morphology was analysed using the Foot Posture Index method. Cox regression analyses were used to compare injury risk between the two groups, based on HRs and their 95% CIs, controlling for potential confounders. Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of motion control system in runners with supinated, neutral and pronated feet., Results: The overall injury risk was lower among the participants who had received motion control shoes (HR=0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85) compared to those receiving standard shoes. This positive effect was only observed in the stratum of runners with pronated feet (n=94; HR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84); there was no difference in runners with neutral (n=218; HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37) or supinated feet (n=60; HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.73). Runners with pronated feet using standard shoes had a higher injury risk compared to those with neutral feet (HR=1.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.22)., Conclusions: The overall injury risk was lower in participants who had received motion control shoes. Based on secondary analysis, those with pronated feet may benefit most from this shoe type., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: To investigate the association between training-related characteristics and running-related injury using a new conceptual model for running-related injury generation, focusing on the synergy between training load and previous injuries, short-term running experience or body mass index (> or < 25 kg m(-2))., Design: Prospective cohort study with a 9-month follow-up., Methods: The data of two previous studies using the same methodology were revisited. Recreational runners (n = 517) reported information about running training characteristics (weekly distance, frequency, speed), other sport participation and injuries on a dedicated internet platform. Weekly volume (dichotomized into < 2h and ≥ 2 h) and session frequency (dichotomized into < 2 and ≥ 2) were the main exposures because they were considered necessary causes for running-related injury. Non-training-related characteristics were included in Cox regression analyses as effect-measure modifiers. Hazard ratio was the measure of association. The size of effect-measure modification was calculated as the relative excess risk due to interaction., Results: One hundred sixty-seven runners reported a running-related injury. Crude analyses revealed that weekly volume < 2h (hazard ratio = 3.29; 95% confidence intervals = 2.27; 4.79) and weekly session frequency < 2 (hazard ratio = 2.41; 95% confidence intervals = 1.71; 3.42) were associated with increased injury rate. Previous injury was identified as an effect-measure modifier on weekly volume (relative excess risk due to interaction = 4.69; 95% confidence intervals = 1.42; 7.95; p = 0.005) and session frequency (relative excess risk due to interaction = 2.44; 95% confidence intervals = 0.48; 4.39; p = 0.015). A negative synergy was found between body mass index and weekly volume (relative excess risk due to interaction = -2.88; 95% confidence intervals = -5.10; -0.66; p = 0.018)., Conclusions: The effect of a runner's training load on running-related injury is influenced by body mass index and previous injury. These results show the importance to distinguish between confounding and effect-measure modification in running-related injury research., (Copyright © 2014 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to observe differences in running style parameters and the stride-to-stride coefficient of variation and correlative patterns using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) between conventional and first-time minimalistic shoe use. We also aimed to study the effect of fatigue on these parameters. 26 recreational runners were tested using a pressure insole device on a treadmill whilst wearing conventional (CONV) and minimalistic (MIN) shoes. They then performed a prolonged running bout simulating a fatiguing training session, before being tested a second time in both shoe types. Average values of strike index (initial ground contact point on the footsole expressed as a percentage of total sole length) were not significantly different between CONV [25.7±14.6% (unfatigued), 23.1±11.1% (fatigued)] and MIN [28.9±19.1% (unfatigued), 26.7±17.6% (fatigued)] (p=0.501). The fatigued state also yielded a similar strike index compared to the unfatigued state (p=0.661). An overall trend in decreased inter-stride correlative patterns of strike index was observed in MIN compared to CONV (p=0.075). No differences in contact time, flight time, stride time, duty factor, stride length and stride frequency were found between shoe types. A trend in reduced flight time (p=0.078) and therefore increased duty factor (p=0.053) was observed due to fatigue. We conclude that in recreational runners, no meaningful, acute adaptation in running style occurs as a result of first-time MIN use. Similarly, runners were able to maintain their running style after a prolonged running bout., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In this double-blind randomised controlled trial, we tested if leisure-time runners using shoes with less compliant midsoles have a higher running-related injury (RRI) risk., Method: We provided 247 runners with standard running shoes having either a soft study shoes (soft-SS) or a hard study shoes (hard-SS) midsole and followed them prospectively for 5 months regarding RRI. All information about sports practice and injuries was uploaded on a dedicated internet platform and checked for consistency and completeness. RRI was defined as any first-time pain sustained during or as a result of running practice and impeding normal running activity for at least 1 day. Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to identify RRI risk factors., Result: The type of study shoes used for running was not associated with RRIs (HR=0.92; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.48). The hard-SS had a 15% greater overall stiffness in the heel region. The two study groups were similar regarding personal and sports participation characteristics, except for years of running experience, which was higher (p<0.05) in the hard-SS group. Global RRI incidence was 12.1 RRI/1000 h of running. No between-group differences were found regarding injury location, type, severity or category. Nevertheless, the adjusted regression model revealed positive associations with RRI risk for body mass index (HR=1.126; 95% CI 1.033 to 1.227), previous injury (HR=1.735; 95% CI 1.037 to 2.902) and mean session intensity (HR=1.396; 95% CI 1.040 to 1.874). Protective factors were previous regular running activity (HR=0.422; 95% CI 0.228 to 0.779) and weekly volume of other sports activities (HR=0.702; 95% CI 0.561 to 0.879)., Conclusions: Midsole hardness of modern cushioned running shoes does not seem to influence RRI risk.

Running biomechanics has received increasing interest in recent literature on running-related injuries, calling for new, portable methods for large-scale measurements. Our aims were to define running strike pattern based on output of a new pressure-sensitive measurement device, the Runalyser, and to test its validity regarding temporal parameters describing running gait. Furthermore, reliability of the Runalyser measurements was evaluated, as well as its ability to discriminate different running styles. Thirty-one healthy participants (30.3 ± 7.4 years, 1.78 ± 0.10 m and 74.1 ± 12.1 kg) were involved in the different study parts. Eleven participants were instructed to use a rearfoot (RFS), midfoot (MFS) and forefoot (FFS) strike pattern while running on a treadmill. Strike pattern was subsequently defined using a linear regression (R(2)=0.89) between foot strike angle, as determined by motion analysis (1000 Hz), and strike index (SI, point of contact on the foot sole, as a percentage of foot sole length), as measured by the Runalyser. MFS was defined by the 95% confidence interval of the intercept (SI=43.9-49.1%). High agreement (overall mean difference 1.2%) was found between stance time, flight time, stride time and duty factor as determined by the Runalyser and a force-measuring treadmill (n=16 participants). Measurements of the two devices were highly correlated (R ≥ 0.80) and not significantly different. Test-retest intra-class correlation coefficients for all parameters were ≥ 0.94 (n=14 participants). Significant differences (p<0.05) between FFS, RFS and habitual running were detected regarding SI, stance time and stride time (n=24 participants). The Runalyser is suitable for, and easily applicable in large-scale studies on running biomechanics., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Identifying atypical lower limb biomechanics may help prevent the occurrence or recurrence of running-related injuries. No reference values for spatiotemporal or kinetic variables in healthy recreational runners are available in the scientific literature to support clinical management. Purpose: To (1) present speed- and sex-stratified reference values for spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in healthy adult recreational runners; (2) identify the determinants of these biomechanical variables; and (3) develop reference regression equations that can be used as a guide in a clinical context. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: This study involved 860 healthy recreational runners (age, 19-65 years [38.5% women]) tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in randomly allocated, standardized running shoes with either hard or soft cushioning. Twelve common spatiotemporal and kinetic variables—including contact time, flight time, duty factor, vertical oscillation, step cadence, step length, vertical impact peak (VIP), time to VIP, vertical average loading rate, vertical stiffness, peak vertical ground-reaction force (GRF), and peak braking force—were derived from GRF recordings. Reference values for each biomechanical variable were calculated using descriptive statistics and stratified by sex and running speed category (≤7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and ≥15 km/h). Correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify potential determinants independently associated with each biomechanical variable and generate reference equations. Results: The mean running speed was 10.5 ± 1.3 km/h and 9 ± 1.1 km/h in men and women, respectively. While all potential predictors were significantly correlated with many of the 12 biomechanical variables, only running speed showed high correlations (r > 0.7). The adjusted R 2 of the multiple regression equations ranged from 0.19 to 0.88. Conclusion: This study provides reference values and equations that may guide clinicians and researchers in interpreting spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in recreational runners. Clinical Relevance: The reference values can be used as targets for clinicians working with recreational runners in cases where there is a clinical suspicion of a causal relationship between atypical biomechanics and running-related injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aim to prevent sports injuries, the intention-to-treat principle is a recommended analysis method and one emphasised in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement that guides quality reporting of such trials. However, an important element of injury prevention trials-compliance with the intervention-is not always well-reported. The purpose of the present educational review was to describe the compliance during follow-up in eight large-scale sports injury trials and address compliance issues that surfaced. Then, we discuss how readers and researchers might consider interpreting results from intention-to-treat analyses depending on the observed compliance with the intervention.Methods: Data from seven different randomised trials and one experimental study were included in the present educational review. In the trials that used training programme as an intervention, we defined full compliance as having completed the programme within ±10% of the prescribed running distance (ProjectRun21 (PR21), RUNCLEVER, Start 2 Run) or time-spent-running in minutes (Groningen Novice Running (GRONORUN)) for each planned training session. In the trials using running shoes as the intervention, full compliance was defined as wearing the prescribed running shoe in all running sessions the participants completed during follow-up.Results: In the trials that used a running programme intervention, the number of participants who had been fully compliant was 0 of 839 (0%) at 24-week follow-up in RUNCLEVER, 0 of 612 (0%) at 14-week follow-up in PR21, 12 of 56 (21%) at 4-week follow-up in Start 2 Run and 8 of 532 (1%) at 8-week follow-up in GRONORUN. In the trials using a shoe-related intervention, the numbers of participants who had been fully compliant at the end of follow-up were 207 of 304 (68%) in the 21 week trial, and 322 of 423 (76%), 521 of 577 (90%), 753 of 874 (86%) after 24-week follow-up in the other three trials, respectively.Conclusion: The proportion of runners compliant at the end of follow-up ranged from 0% to 21% in the trials using running programme as intervention and from 68% to 90% in the trials using running shoes as intervention. We encourage sports injury researchers to carefully assess and report the compliance with intervention in their articles, use appropriate analytical approaches and take compliance into account when drawing study conclusions. In studies with low compliance, G-estimation may be a useful analytical tool provided certain assumptions are met. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]