Translational sports medicine · 2025
Running Shoe Recommendations Based on Gait Analysis Improve Perceptions of Comfort, Performance and Injury Risk: A Single-Blind Randomised Crossover Trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fife Andrew, Esculier Jean-Francois, Ramsey Codi, Hébert-Losier Kim
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We examined how shoe recommendation based on gait analysis influences subjective perceptions of comfort, performance and injury reduction in runners while monitoring spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters.
DESIGN: Single-blind crossover randomised controlled trial with repeated measures.
METHOD: Twenty-one women runners completed a clinical gait analysis and four 5-min treadmill trials at a self-selected comfortable speed sequentially in their own shoes (OS), the first experimental shoes (randomised), their OS, and the second experimental shoes (randomised). The two experimental shoes were identical except for their colour (randomised) and were presented to runners as either a 'basic' shoe or, deceptively, a 'gait-matched' shoe selected for them based on the clinical gait analysis conducted.
RESULTS: Running Comfort Assessment Tool (RUN-CAT) scores and 100 mm visual analogue scale ratings of subjective comfort, performance and injury reduction differed significantly between own and experimental shoes (p < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that runners' OS were the most comfortable (83.3 ± 3.8 mm) followed by gait-matched (66.1 ± 21.5 mm) and then basic (49.0 ± 24.1 mm) shoes. RUN-CAT, performance and injury reduction ratings were similar between own and gait-matched shoes, but gait-matched shoes had better mean difference (95% confidence intervals), RUN-CAT (15.6 mm [5.7, 25.5]), performance (17.1 mm [5.6, 28.6]) and injury reduction (30.1 mm [8.9, 51.2]) scores than the basic shoes. Discrete spatiotemporal, foot strike angle and resultant tibial acceleration parameters were not significantly different between shoes (p ≥ 0.157). Most runners overall preferred their OS (71.4%), followed by gait-matched (23.8%) and basic (4.8%) shoes.
CONCLUSIONS: Shoe recommendation and description can significantly affect subjective shoe comfort and overall preferences without significantly altering spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters. Runners should be cautious while choosing shoes based on recommendations and descriptors derived from gait analysis or based solely on perceived comfort as runners' subjective perceptions can be artificially manipulated. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12623000516684.
DESIGN: Single-blind crossover randomised controlled trial with repeated measures.
METHOD: Twenty-one women runners completed a clinical gait analysis and four 5-min treadmill trials at a self-selected comfortable speed sequentially in their own shoes (OS), the first experimental shoes (randomised), their OS, and the second experimental shoes (randomised). The two experimental shoes were identical except for their colour (randomised) and were presented to runners as either a 'basic' shoe or, deceptively, a 'gait-matched' shoe selected for them based on the clinical gait analysis conducted.
RESULTS: Running Comfort Assessment Tool (RUN-CAT) scores and 100 mm visual analogue scale ratings of subjective comfort, performance and injury reduction differed significantly between own and experimental shoes (p < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that runners' OS were the most comfortable (83.3 ± 3.8 mm) followed by gait-matched (66.1 ± 21.5 mm) and then basic (49.0 ± 24.1 mm) shoes. RUN-CAT, performance and injury reduction ratings were similar between own and gait-matched shoes, but gait-matched shoes had better mean difference (95% confidence intervals), RUN-CAT (15.6 mm [5.7, 25.5]), performance (17.1 mm [5.6, 28.6]) and injury reduction (30.1 mm [8.9, 51.2]) scores than the basic shoes. Discrete spatiotemporal, foot strike angle and resultant tibial acceleration parameters were not significantly different between shoes (p ≥ 0.157). Most runners overall preferred their OS (71.4%), followed by gait-matched (23.8%) and basic (4.8%) shoes.
CONCLUSIONS: Shoe recommendation and description can significantly affect subjective shoe comfort and overall preferences without significantly altering spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters. Runners should be cautious while choosing shoes based on recommendations and descriptors derived from gait analysis or based solely on perceived comfort as runners' subjective perceptions can be artificially manipulated. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12623000516684.