Literature DB >> 25155917

Injury-reduction effectiveness of prescribing running shoes on the basis of foot arch height: summary of military investigations.

Joseph J Knapik1, Daniel W Trone, Juste Tchandja, Bruce H Jones.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Secondary analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials. Objective Analysis of studies that examined whether prescribing running shoes on the basis of foot arch height influenced injury risk during military basic training.
BACKGROUND: Prior to 2007, running magazines and running-shoe companies suggested that imprints of the bottom of the feet (plantar shape) could be used as an indication of foot arch height and that this could be used to select individually appropriate types of running shoes.
METHODS: Similar studies were conducted in US Army (2168 men, 951 women), Air Force (1955 men, 718 women), and Marine Corps (840 men, 571 women) basic training. After foot examinations, recruits were randomized to either an experimental or a control group. Recruits in the experimental group selected or were assigned motion-control, stability, or cushioned shoes to match their plantar shape, which represented a low, medium, or high foot arch, respectively. The control group received a stability shoe regardless of plantar shape. Injuries during basic training were assessed from outpatient medical records.
RESULTS: Meta-analyses that pooled results of the 3 investigations showed little difference between the experimental and control groups in the injury rate (injuries per 1000 person-days) for either men (summary rate ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88, 1.06) or women (summary rate ratio = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.08). When injury rates for specific types of running shoes were compared, there were no differences.
CONCLUSION: Selecting running shoes based on arch height had little influence on injury risk in military basic training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prevention, level 1b.

Entities:  

Keywords:  foot type; footprints; pronation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25155917     DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2014.5342

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther        ISSN: 0190-6011            Impact factor:   4.751


  13 in total

1.  Description and Rate of Musculoskeletal Injuries in Air Force Basic Military Trainees, 2012-2014.

Authors:  Nathaniel S Nye; Mary T Pawlak; Bryant J Webber; Juste N Tchandja; Michelle R Milner
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Effectiveness of Movement Therapy Interventions and Training Modifications for Preventing Running Injuries: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Žiga Kozinc; Nejc Šarabon
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Shoe cushioning, body mass and running biomechanics as risk factors for running injury: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Laurent Malisoux; Nicolas Delattre; Axel Urhausen; Daniel Theisen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Running Injuries in the Participants of Ljubljana Marathon.

Authors:  Luka Vitez; Petra Zupet; Vesna Zadnik; Matej Drobnič
Journal:  Zdr Varst       Date:  2017-10-09

5.  What are the perceptions of runners and healthcare professionals on footwear and running injury risk?

Authors:  Gurmeet K Dhillon; Michael A Hunt; Andrea L Reid; Jean-Francois Esculier
Journal:  BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med       Date:  2020-06-30

6.  Enhanced injury prevention programme for recreational runners (the SPRINT study): design of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Tryntsje Fokkema; Robert-Jan de Vos; Edwin Visser; Patrick Krastman; John IJzerman; Bart W Koes; Jan A N Verhaar; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Marienke van Middelkoop
Journal:  BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med       Date:  2020-06-16

7.  Is consumer behaviour towards footwear predisposing for lower extremity injuries in runners and walkers? A prospective study.

Authors:  Tine Marieke Willems; Roel De Ridder; Philip Roosen
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2019-08-17       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  A consensus definition and rating scale for minimalist shoes.

Authors:  Jean-Francois Esculier; Blaise Dubois; Clermont E Dionne; Jean Leblond; Jean-Sébastien Roy
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  Injury risk in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding.

Authors:  Laurent Malisoux; Nicolas Chambon; Nicolas Delattre; Nils Gueguen; Axel Urhausen; Daniel Theisen
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 13.800

10.  Foot Arch Height and Quality of Life in Adults: A Strobe Observational Study.

Authors:  Daniel López-López; Juan Manuel Vilar-Fernández; Gonzalo Barros-García; Marta Elena Losa-Iglesias; Patricia Palomo-López; Ricardo Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo; Cesar Calvo-Lobo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.