Detailed Search Results
| Author/Association: | Theisen D, Malisoux L, Genin J, Delattre N, Seil R, Urhausen A |
| Title: | Influence of midsole hardness of standard cushioned shoes on running-related injury risk [with consumer summary] |
| Source: | British Journal of Sports Medicine 2014 Mar;48(5):371-376 |
| Method: | clinical trial |
| Method Score: | 6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
| Consumer Summary: | WHAT ARE THE NEW FINDINGS: Within our study conditions, midsole hardness of modern cushioned shoes did not influence running-related injury (RRI) risk. Body mass is not decisive for the selection of a pair of running shoes. Previous injury is one of the factors that are most consistently associated with increased RRI risk. Individuals are at a higher RRI risk if they have a greater body mass index, engage newly into running activity or train at high intensities. HOW MIGHT IT IMPACT ON CLINICAL PRACTICE IN THE NEAR FUTURE: Shock-absorbing properties of running shoes are not critically related to running-related injuries (RRI) risk. Individuals engaging newly in leisure-time running might be more prone to training errors and require appropriate counsel from certified trainers. Leisure-time runners should be encouraged to include other sporting activities into their training plan. |
| Abstract: | 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/1,000 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. Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group. Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):  help |
