Content uploaded by Daniel Theisen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Theisen on Jan 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Injury risk in runners using standard or motion
control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with
participant and assessor blinding
Laurent Malisoux,
1
Nicolas Chambon,
2
Nicolas Delattre,
2
Nils Gueguen,
2
Axel Urhausen,
1,3
Daniel Theisen
1
▸Additional material is
published online only. To view
please visit the journal online
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/
bjsports-2015-095031).
1
Sports Medicine Research
Laboratory, Luxembourg
Institute of Health,
Luxembourg, Luxembourg
2
Decathlon, Movement
Sciences Department,
Villeneuve d’Ascq, France
3
Sports Clinic, Centre
Hospitalier de Luxembourg,
Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Correspondence to
Dr Laurent Malisoux, Sports
Medicine Research Laboratory,
Luxembourg Institute of
Health, 76 rue d’Eich,
Luxembourg, L-1460
Luxembourg; laurent.
malisoux@lih.lu
Accepted 16 November 2015
To cite: Malisoux L,
Chambon N, Delattre N,
et al.Br J Sports Med
Published Online First:
[please include Day Month
Year] doi:10.1136/bjsports-
2015-095031
ABSTRACT
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.
INTRODUCTION
Several hundred running shoe models are currently
available in the market. Notwithstanding the
increasing focus on running shoe design, technolo-
gies and function, running-related injury incidence
has not changed noticeably over the last few
decades.
1
Various biomechanical variables such as
strike pattern,
2
impact forces,
3
foot posture or foot
pronation,
45
have all been proposed as injury risk
factors. Footwear features such as cushioning tech-
nology, stability and motion control systems
(motion control shoes), have been designed to miti-
gate against these risk factors and are extensively
used as selling points by shoe manufacturers.
Foot posture is believed by some to be a risk
factor for injury.
5
This often results in attempts to
match footwear to a runner’s foot morphology,
despite an absence of evidence to suggest this
approach will reduce injuries.
4–6
Specifically,
motion control shoes are typically prescribed to
runners with pronated feet, while neutral stability
shoes are recommended to individuals with neutral
feet and cushioned shoes to those with supinated
feet. Several studies have been unable to demon-
strate the benefit of the above-described prescrip-
tion strategy,
7–10
although they were either
inadequately powered,
9
or performed in a military
population,
78
limiting the applicability of findings
to distance runners.
4
Furthermore, a more pro-
nated foot posture was reported not to be asso-
ciated with injury risk in a prospective cohort study
on over 900 novice runners,
11
questioning the use
of running shoes featuring motion control systems
designed to reduce foot pronation. Running in
shoes equipped with that technology increased the
risk of experiencing running-related pain.
9
Although these results are preliminary, it is worry-
ing that a significant proportion of running shoes
have motion control, a fact that many runners may
not be aware of when buying their shoes.
Therefore, in this study, we (1) investigated
whether running shoes equipped with motion
control features modified injury risk in regular
leisure-time runners and (2) if this influence
depended on foot morphology. Our main hypoth-
esis was that injury risk would be different when
running in shoes with motion control compared
with standard (neutral) shoes, while controlling for
the potential confounders. Our secondary hypoth-
esis was that the difference in injury risk would
depend on foot morphology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants and study design
This randomised controlled trial (unregistered)
recruited recreational runners, regardless of fitness
level. Reporting of the study followed the
CONSORT statement.
12
Given an expected injury
rate of 22% and 35% in the two groups,
9
respect-
ively, and a desired power of 0.8 and an α-level of
0.05, a total of 364 runners were required to test
our main hypothesis. All participants received a full
description of the study protocol and provided
written informed consent for participation. All pro-
cedures were approved by the National Ethics
Committee for Research (ref 201211/04).
Participants were recruited via advertisements in
local newspapers and on specialised internet sites
from March to April 2014. Following online regis-
tration, participants were contacted by phone to
verify inclusion criteria: healthy, aged 18–65 years,
Malisoux L, et al.Br J Sports Med 2016;0:1–7. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031 1
Original article
BJSM Online First, published on January 8, 2016 as 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031
Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2016. Produced by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd under licence.
group.bmj.com on January 9, 2016 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
regular running (at least 1 session/week) for at least 6 months
over the 12 months prior to the study, no contraindication to
perform running activity, no prior (<12 months) surgery at the
lower limbs or lower back region, and no use of orthopaedic
insoles for running activities. Volunteers were also required to
perform at least one running activity per week during the
6-month follow-up period (from June to December), to use the
provided study shoes for all running activities, and to report, at
least once per week, all sports activities and injury or pain
experienced during the follow-up.
Individuals reported to the laboratory for eligibility check and
baseline assessment. A questionnaire gathered information about
age, sex, running regularity over the previous 12 months
(months of practice), running experience (years of regular prac-
tice) and previous injury to the lower back or lower limbs pre-
venting normal running activity during the preceding
12 months. Foot posture was assessed using the six-item Foot
Posture Index (FPI), previously proven to be valid.
13 14
Normative values presented by Redmond et al
15
were used as
references to categorise each foot into one of the five categories
(highly supinated, supinated, neutral, pronated and highly pro-
nated) based on their FPI score. Two previously trained apprai-
sers performed all evaluations and assessed the first 50
participants together to optimise consistency. Subsequently, high
inter-rater agreement for classifying the runners in one of the
five categories was found based on a further 40 participants,
with a Cohen’sκcoefficient of 0.86. Since the unit of analysis is
the participant, the classification into one of the five categories
was based on the foot with the most extreme score.
Study shoes characteristics
Two versions (motion control and standard) of a running shoe
model were provided for the trial by a renowned sport equip-
ment manufacturer. Shoes were de-identified so the study parti-
cipants did not know which brand they were given. The motion
control shoes and standard shoes both had a heel-to-toe drop of
10 mm and were derived from a commercially available model.
Motion control shoes were characterised by (1) a thermoplastic
polyurethane structure located at the medial part of the midfoot
and (2) a dual-density ethyl-vinyl-acetate (EVA) midsole located
at the forefoot (figure 1). Apart from these features, the two
versions were identical, so participants did not know which type
of shoe they used.
A subset of each version was characterised regarding midsole
hardness difference between the medial and the lateral part of
the midsole, using an Asker-C durometer according to the
standard JIS K 7312 protocol for hardness characterisation of
viscoelastic polymers (average value of 5 independent measures/
shoe; 12 shoes tested/model). The measure was taken perpen-
dicularly to the frontal plan, with the shoes cut at the level of
the first metatarsal head.
Participants were randomly allocated to one of the two shoe
models in accordance with stratification by potential confoun-
ders (age and body mass index (BMI); cut-off values are
medians)
16
and foot morphology. Participants and assessors
involved in the shoe distribution and participant follow-up were
both blinded regarding the shoe allocation. Each shoe pair was
coded by a coworker not involved in the study prior to the dis-
tribution. The code was broken after completion of data
collection.
Data collection during follow-up
A dedicated internet-based platform (http://www.tipps.lu,
Training and Injury Prevention Platform for Sports) was used to
collect all information of the participants pertaining to their
sports participation and any adverse events (injuries, pains and
illnesses).
17–19
Training sessions were characterised by the type
of activity, context, duration, subjectively perceived intensity
measured using the Borg CR-10 scale,
20
distance covered,
running surface and shoes worn. Whether participants experi-
enced any pain during the session forcing him/her to reduce
volume or intensity, or to interrupt the practice, was also
reported. The response to each item was mandatory for every
declared training session or competition and could be selected
from a predefined list.
Injury was self-reported and defined as any physical pain
located at the lower limbs or lower back region, sustained
during or as a result of running practice, and impeding planned
running activity for at least 1 day (time-loss definition). The
online injury questionnaire has been previously described.
21
Injuries were classified according to consensus guidelines on
sports injury surveillance studies.
22 23
Self-reported data on every injury were systematically checked
by the principle investigator for completeness and coherence.
Participants who did not complete their entire running calendar
with weekly information were contacted by one of the investiga-
tors to ensure that injury was not the reason for non-
compliance. A participant was considered as dropping out of
the study when no data had been uploaded in the system for
more than 2 weeks despite an automatic email reminder and a
phone call from the research team. At the end of the study
(December 2014), the participants were invited for a final visit
to check all injury data, compliance and shoe use.
Statistical analyses
Descriptive data for the shoe properties, as well as the personal
and training-related characteristics are presented as count and
percentage for dichotomous variables, and as mean and SD, or
as median and range, respectively, for normally and abnormally
distributed continuous variables. Average sport-related character-
istics were computed for each participant over their specific
period of observation. Lateral and medial midsole densities of
both models were analysed using a Student’s t test.
To address the first objective, unadjusted Cox proportional
hazard regressions were performed to present the crude esti-
mates of hazard ration (HR) for shoe version and other poten-
tial risk factors. Date at inclusion (shoe distribution date) and
date at injury or at censoring were basic data used to calculate
the time at risk. A participant was right-censored, yet included
in the analyses, in case of severe disease, non-injury causing a
modification of the running plan or at the end of follow-up
(shoe return date), whichever came first. Time at risk was
expressed in hours spent running and used as the time scale. To
validate the statistical model, the assumption of proportional
hazards was evaluated by log-minus-log plots. The variables
with a p value <0.200 were included in the adjusted Cox
regression analysis to determine if the use of motion control
shoes is associated with injury risk, regardless of runners’foot
morphology, and controlling for potential confounders. The rec-
ommendation of using at least 10 injuries per predictor variable
included in the Cox regression analysis was strictly followed.
24
To address the second objective, a stratified analysis was per-
formed to investigate the interaction between shoe version and
foot morphology. HRs and their 95% CIs were determined for
different foot morphology strata, with a single reference cat-
egory (the stratum of runners with neutral feet, using neutral
shoes).
25 26
HR and the corresponding 95% CI were computed
within strata of foot type to determine the effect of the shoe
2 Malisoux L, et al.Br J Sports Med 2016;0:1–7. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031
Original article
group.bmj.com on January 9, 2016 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
model within each strata. Significance was accepted for p<0.05.
All analyses were performed using SPSS V.20.
RESULTS
Participants
A total of 423 eligible volunteers came to the laboratory for the
initial visit and shoe order. Thirty-seven participants did not
retrieve their running shoes because of injuries (n=11) or other
health problems (n=5) during the production period, lack of
interest to participate (n=17) or withdrawal for personal
reasons (n=4). A total of 386 pairs of running shoes were thus
distributed. After shoe distribution, 14 participants were
excluded from the analysis because they did not upload any
training data (n=8), had not used the study shoes for more than
2 sessions (n=5) or had health problems unrelated to running
(n=1). In total, 51 participants (figure 2) with similar demo-
graphics and foot type distribution to those of the final sample
were excluded from the analyses (see online supplementary
table S1).
A total of 12 558 running sessions were recorded for a dis-
tance of 116 723 km and 12 094 h run. Table 1 illustrates the
characteristics of the two study groups, which both had a high
compliance regarding the use of the provided study shoes. The
average data uploading delay was 4 days. Since there were few
participants with hyperpronated and hypersupinated feet, these
categories were merged with those of pronated and supinated
feet, respectively.
Shoe characteristics
In motion control shoes, the midsole hardness was 15% higher
(p<0.001) in the medial part compared to the lateral part
(Asker C values 60±2 and 51±2, respectively), while there was
no difference in standard shoes (51±3 and 51±2, respectively).
Injuries
An injury was sustained by 93 participants (25%) during the
follow-up. The overall incidence was 7.69 injuries/1000 h of
exposure (95% CI 6.28 to 9.41). There were 32.4% of partici-
pants injured in the standard shoe group and 17.6% in the
motion control shoe group (RR=0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79).
More details on the first-time injury characteristics are presented
in table 2.
Primary analysis
Overall, the injury risk was lower among the participants who
had received motion control shoes (p=0.005; table 3). Both the
unadjusted and the adjusted model revealed that previous injury
was a risk factor (p<0.001). Additionally, BMI, running regular-
ity and mean session distance were associated with injury risk,
but only in the unadjusted model. Both models yielded very
similar estimates for the shoe version. Thus, crude estimates
were used in the secondary analyses.
Secondary analysis
In the subgroup of runners with pronated feet (n=94), the rate
at which the injuries occurred was significantly lower among the
participants using the motion control shoes (HR=0.34; 95% CI
0.13 to 0.84; bottom line of table 4). This difference was not
observed in runners with neutral (HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.44 to
1.37) or supinated feet (HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.73). No
difference was found between the strata regarding the principle
confounders (see online supplementary table S2). Interestingly,
among the participants who received standard shoes, the rate at
which the injuries occurred was significantly higher in the group
of runners with pronated feet compared to runners with neutral
feet (HR=1.80, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.22). In the group of partici-
pants with pronated feet, 25 had one foot classified as neutral.
A sensitivity analysis showed that reclassifying these runners
into the group with neutral feet did not affect the results.
DISCUSSION
This is the first large-scale prospective cohort study to investigate
the effectiveness of motion control shoes on injury risk among
regular leisure-time runners. We found that running in shoes with
Figure 1 Illustration of the two
technical features (coloured in black
for illustration purposes) designed to
limit the pronation movement of the
runners. (A) Represents a piece of rigid
plastic (thermoplastic polyurethane)
located on the medial side, under the
midfoot at the midsole edge. (B) Area
of the harder midsole EVA
(ethylene-vinyl acetate) foam. These
elements were not recognisable on the
shoe version distributed.
Malisoux L, et al.Br J Sports Med 2016;0:1–7. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031 3
Original article
group.bmj.com on January 9, 2016 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
motion control was associated with a significantly lower overall
injury risk, thus confirming our main hypothesis. However, in
accordance with our secondary hypothesis, this general protective
effect of motion control shoes was demonstrated only in runners
with pronated feet, while those with neutral or supinated feet did
not benefit from this technology. In addition, the stratified analysis
revealed that, among the runners who received the standard shoes,
those with pronated feet had a higher injury risk than those with
neutral feet (table 4). Nevertheless, these secondary findings must
be viewed as preliminary and need to be verified by further
research including a larger sample size.
Matching running shoes to foot type?
The injury incidence reported in the present study (7.7 injuries/
1000 h of running) was consistent with previous results from
our laboratory and a meta-analysis (6.7 and 7.7 RRI/1000 h,
respectively).
26 27
The influence of shoe technology on injury
risk in our study may appear inconsistent with some prior
research. However, differences in study design, population and
shoe characteristics must be considered. Previous studies in mili-
tary populations
6–8
and female runners
9
have investigated the
effectiveness of matching running shoes according to foot
shape, but none found evidence for pronating runners to be
advised to wear antipronation shoes.
Importantly, however, the study series by Knapik et al
6–8
focused on military populations where recruits are exposed to
high training loads during activities other than running,
meaning findings may not necessarily be extrapolated to recre-
ational runners. The study by Ryan et al
9
involving female
runners analysed the effect of three levels of footwear stability
on pain outcomes. However, the participants were not blinded
and their final sample size was small (n=81). Additionally, the
study groups were not equivalent regarding body mass and
running experience, two potential confounders. Furthermore,
the ‘neutral’running shoe used in their study (Pegasus, Nike)
actually possesses motion control features, including a thermo-
plastic midfoot shank and a lateral sole flare. This illustrates that
shoes from different brands presented as neutral may not be
identical, and that care must be taken when drawing conclusions
from studies that have used different shoe models.
A large prospective cohort study (DANORUN) in novice
runners using neutral shoes previously questioned the belief that
a pronated foot posture is a risk factor for injury.
11
Indeed, that
study revealed that runners with pronated feet were at a similar
risk of injury compared to those with neutral feet. Contrastingly,
Figure 2 Flow chart of volunteers and study participants.
4 Malisoux L, et al.Br J Sports Med 2016;0:1–7. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031
Original article
group.bmj.com on January 9, 2016 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
we observed a higher injury risk in our subgroup possessing a
more pronated foot posture. However, our target population
(more experienced and regular runners) and shoe brand used
were different. Since the DANORUN and the present study are
currently the only ones to investigate the association between
foot morphology and injury risk, further research is required to
explain this apparent discrepancy and to reach a final
conclusion.
Clinical implications
Runners have used cushioned shoes for only four decades,
which contrasts with the long-term anatomical and neuromo-
tor adaptations brought about by millions of years while
running barefoot or in minimal footwear.
3
One of the main
characteristics of modern shoes is their cushioning properties
aiming to increase the comfort and decrease the impact force
at touchdown.
28
However, the softer the sole of the shoe, the
greater the risk of overpronation movement.
29
A previous
study already suggested that a certain degree of additional sta-
bility may be beneficial even for those individuals with
neutral foot posture.
9
This could be especially true for shoes
with soft midsoles. The shoes used in the present study had
an overall stiffness that was probably located within the lower
10–15% range of commonly available models, according to
data from Shorten and Mientjes
30
and those from our previ-
ous study.
18
One might speculate that runners with pronated feet were
insufficiently stabilised with the current standard shoe version
and that additional motion control could be achieved with the
motion control shoe version. The fact that motion control
shoes are effective in controlling foot pronation, especially
footwear with dual midsole materials used in this study,
31
sup-
ports this argument. We observed that runners with pronated
feet were protected when running in motion control shoes and
that they were exposed to a greater injury risk when using the
standard shoes. Unfortunately, in the absence of biomechanical
data, the mechanisms involved in the injuries observed in our
study are unclear. Future research should investigate what
degree of motion control is needed in our modern cushioned
shoes with regard to foot morphology and other footwear
properties.
Strengths and limitations
Strengths of this study include the randomised controlled
design with participant and assessor blinding, a stratified ran-
domisation and a prospective follow-up over 6 months, plus
the fact that the two running shoe versions were strictly
similar except for the motion control features. A major
Table 1 Participants’characteristics and sport participation
pattern for both study groups
Characteristics Unit/qualifier
Standard
shoes
(n=185)
Motion
control
shoes
(n=187)
Participants’characteristics
Age Years 41.0±11.2 39.9±9.7
Sex Male 113 (61%) 111 (59%)
Female 72 (39%) 76 (41%)
BMI kg/m
2
23.7±3.0 23.6±3.1
Previous injury Yes 137 (74.1%) 143 (76.5%)
No 48 (25.9%) 44 (23.5%)
Running experience Years 7 [0–45] 5 [0–37]
Regularity
(last 12 months)
Months 12 [6–12] 12 [3–12]
Foot morphology Hypersupinated 5 (2.7%) 5 (2.7%)
Supinated 25 (13.5%) 25 (13.4%)
Neutral 108 (58.4%) 110 (58.8%)
Pronated 39 (21.1%) 41 (21.9%)
Hyperpronated 8 (4.3%) 6 (3.2%)
Sport participation pattern
Sessions run with study
shoes
% of total
sessions
95.1±11.8 94.9±10.6
Other sports Sessions/week 1.0±1.5 0.9±1.3
Running frequency Sessions/week 1.9±0.9 1.9±1.3
Mean session duration min 56±15 57±43
Mean session distance km 9.0±2.6 8.7±3.4
Mean session intensity au 3.8±1.0 3.7±1.0
Mean speed Km/h 9.7±1.2 9.6±1.4
Runs on hard surface % of total
sessions
60.4±31.2 58.3±33.6
Competition % of total
volume
1.9±3.4 2.4±7.8
au, arbitrary unit; BMI, body mass index.
Table 2 Characteristics of self-reported first-time running-related
injuries for each study group (n=93)
Standard shoes
Motion control
shoes
N Per cent N Per cent
Injury location
Lower back region/pelvis 2 3.3 0 0
Hip/groin 5 8.3 1 3
Thigh 5 8.3 4 12.1
Knee 10 16.7 7 21.2
Lower leg 16 26.7 7 21.2
Ankle 13 21.7 10 30.3
Foot 8 13.3 4 12.1
Toe 1 1.7 0 0
Injury type
Tendon 25 41.7 17 51.5
Muscle 18 30 9 27.3
Capsules and ligaments 8 13.3 5 15.2
Bone structures 5 8.3 1 3
Other joint structures 2 3.3 1 3
Other injury/unknown 2 3.4 0 0
Injury severity
Slight (0–3 days) 16 26.7 7 21.2
Minor (4–7 days) 4 6.7 8 24.2
Moderate (8–28 days) 25 41.7 12 36.4
Major (>28 days) 15 25 6 18.2
Recurrence
No 32 53.3 22 66.7
Yes 28 46.7 11 33.3
Injury category
Acute 13 21.7 8 24.2
Progressive 47 78.3 25 75.8
Self-reported injuries were classified according to consensus guidelines for sports
injury surveillance studies.
21 22
Malisoux L, et al.Br J Sports Med 2016;0:1–7. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031 5
Original article
group.bmj.com on January 9, 2016 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
limitation is that too few runners with highly supinated or
highly pronated feet participated in the study, thus not allow-
ing analyses of these subgroups. Additionally, the absence of
significant results for runners with supinated and neutral foot
types may be due to the low sample size, since the study was
not powered for these secondary analyses. This limitation is
highlighted by the small number of events observed in the
stratum of runners with supinated feet, indicating that these
results should be considered with caution (table 4). Given
that the participants were asked to use the study shoes for all
their running sessions, those runners preferring to use more
than one shoe pair may have been reluctant to register. Thus,
the volunteers included in this study may not represent all
recreational runners. Another aspect of this study is that only
one shoe model was tested regarding the effect of motion
control technology. Therefore, our results may not be gener-
alisable to other shoe models or brands.
Summary
The overall injury risk was lower among the participants who
had received motion control shoes. Based on secondary analysis,
it appears that runners with pronated feet may benefit most
from this shoe type.
What are the new findings?
▸In recreational runners, the use of motion control shoes was
associated with lower injury risk compared to standard shoes.
▸Among the runners using standard shoes, those with
pronated feet were at a higher risk of injury compared to
those with neutral feet.
▸Runners with pronated feet may benefit most from shoes
with motion control.
Table 3 Results of the unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression models for the variables tested
Indicator
Unit/qualifier
Unadjusted model Adjusted model
HR 95% CI p Value HR 95% CI
Main exposure of interest
Shoe version Standard shoes is ref 0.59* 0.39 to 0.91 0.016†0.55* 0.36 to 0.85
Participants’characteristics
Age Years 0.99 0.97 to 1.01 0.150†0.99 0.97 to 1.02
Sex Male is ref 1.02 0.67 to 1.54 0.944
BMI 1 kg/m
2
increase 1.07* 1.01 to 1.15 0.034†1.05 0.98 to 1.12
Previous injury No (previous injury) is ref 2.77* 1.82 to 4.21 <0.001†2.70* 1.77 to 4.11
Running experience Years 0.99 0.97 to 1.02 0.527
Regularity (last 12 months) Months 0.90* 0.82 to 0.99 0.028†0.91 0.83 to 1.01
Foot morphology Neutral is ref
Supinated (and highly) 1.27 0.72 to 2.24 0.405†1.42 0.80 to 2.54
Pronated (and highly) 1.34 0.84 to 2.15 0.225†1.43 0.88 to 2.30
Sport participation pattern
Other sports frequency Sessions/week 1.04 0.91 to 1.18 0.617
Running frequency Sessions/week 0.78 0.61 to 1.01 0.057†0.82 0.62 to 1.08
Mean session duration min 1.00 0.99 to 1.01 0.974
Mean session distance km 0.90* 0.83 to 0.98 0.014†0.93 0.86 to 1.02
Mean session intensity au 0.91 0.73 to 1.14 0.424
*Significant results.
†Variables with p value <0.200 or used for the stratified randomisation were included in the adjusted model; total volume of exposure: 12 094 h; au, arbitrary unit; BMI, body mass
index.
‡Years of regular practice of running.
Table 4 Stratified analysis of the effect of shoe version according to foot morphology (n=372)
Supinated feet Neutral feet Pronated feet
Injured/non-injured
HR (95% CI)
p value
Injured/non-injured
HR (95% CI)
p value
Injured/non-injured
HR (95% CI)
p value
Standard shoes 11/19
1.49 (0.74 to 2.98)
0.263
30/78
1
19/28
1.80* (1.01 to 3.22)
0.048
Motion control shoes 5/25
0.76 (0.29 to 1.97)
0.574
21/89
0.79 (0.45 to 1.38)
0.398
7/40
0.64 (0.28 to 1.45)
0.280
HR (95%CI); p value for shoe version within strata
of foot morphology (standard shoes is ref)
0.59 (0.20 to 1.73)
0.335
0.78 (0.44 to 1.37)
0.382
0.34* (0.13 to 0.84)
0.020
*Significant results; the reference was the group of runners with neutral feet, using neutral shoes.
6 Malisoux L, et al.Br J Sports Med 2016;0:1–7. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031
Original article
group.bmj.com on January 9, 2016 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
How might it impact on clinical practice in the future?
▸With cushioned running shoes, some motion control may be
necessary to limit injury risk in recreational runners.
▸Recreational runners with pronated feet using neutral shoes
may be at an increased risk of injury.
▸Runners with pronated feet may be advised to try motion
control shoes for running.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr Stephen Senn for
preparing the randomisation, and Mr Daniel Karels and Mrs Romy Primc for their
precious assistance with data collection.
Contributors LM, NC, ND, NG, AU and DT contributed to the study conception
and study design; LM was responsible for the acquisition and analysis of the data.
NC was responsible for shoe testing. LM and DT were responsible for data
interpretation and manuscript drafting. LM, NC, ND, NG, AU and DT contributed to
critical manuscript revision and approval. LM and DT were responsible for the overall
content.
Funding This study was co-funded by Decathlon, Movement Sciences Department,
Villeneuve d’Ascq, France.
Competing interests A research partnership agreement was signed between
Decathlon and the LIH. ND, NC and NG are employed at Decathlon Group.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval National Ethics Committee for Research (CNER; ref 201211/04).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which
permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially,
and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is
properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/4.0/
REFERENCES
1 Knapik JJ, Jones BH, Steelman RA. Physical training in boots and running shoes: a
historical comparison of injury incidence in basic combat training. Mil Med
2015;180:321–8.
2 Mann R, Malisoux L, Nuhrenborger C, et al. Association of previous injury and
speed with running style and stride-to-stride fluctuations. Scand J Med Sci Sports
2015;25:e638–45.
3 Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA, et al. Foot strike patterns and collision
forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 2010;463:531–6.
4 Richards CE, Magin PJ, Callister R. Is your prescription of distance running shoes
evidence-based? Br J Sports Med 2009;43:159–62.
5 Neal BS, Griffiths IB, Dowling GJ, et al. Foot posture as a risk factor for lower limb
overuse injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res 2014;7:55.
6 Knapik JJ, Trone DW, Tchandja J, et al. Injury-reduction effectiveness of prescribing
running shoes on the basis of foot arch height: summary of military investigations.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44:805–12.
7 Knapik JJ, Brosch LC, Venuto M, et al. Effect on injuries of assigning shoes based
on foot shape in air force basic training. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:S197–211.
8 Knapik JJ, Trone DW, Swedler DI, et al. Injury reduction effectiveness of assigning
running shoes based on plantar shape in Marine Corps basic training. Am J Sports
Med 2010;38:1759–67.
9 Ryan MB, Valiant GA, McDonald K, et al. The effect of three different levels of
footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial.
Br J Sports Med 2011;45:715–21.
10 Nigg BM, Baltich J, Hoerzer S, et al. Running shoes and running injuries:
mythbusting and a proposal for two new paradigms: ‘preferred movement path’
and ‘comfort filter’.Br J Sports Med 2015;49:1290–4.
11 Nielsen RO, Buist I, Parner ET, et al. Foot pronation is not associated with increased
injury risk in novice runners wearing a neutral shoe: a 1-year prospective cohort
study. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:440–7.
12 Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and
elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ
2010;340:c869.
13 Keenan AM, Redmond AC, Horton M, et al. The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis
of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:88–93.
14 Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating
system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech
(Bristol, Avon) 2006;21:89–98.
15 Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J
Foot Ankle Res 2008;1:6.
16 van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M, et al. Incidence and determinants of
lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J
Sports Med 2007;41:469–80; discussion 80.
17 Malisoux L, Frisch A, Urhausen A, et al. Monitoring of sport participation and injury
risk in young athletes. J Sci Med Sport 2013;16:504–8.
18 Theisen D, Malisoux L, Genin J, et al.Influence of midsole hardness of standard
cushioned shoes on running-related injury risk. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:371–6.
19 Malisoux L, Ramesh J, Mann R, et al. Can parallel use of different running shoes
decrease running-related injury risk? Scand J Med Sci Sports 2015;25:110–15.
20 Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30:1164–8.
21 Malisoux L, Frisch A, Urhausen A, et al. Injury incidence in a sports school during a
3-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013;21:2895–900.
22 Fuller CW, Ekstrand J, Junge A, et al. Consensus statement on injury definitions and
data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. Br J Sports Med
2006;40:193–201.
23 Timpka T, Alonso JM, Jacobsson J, et al. Injury and illness definitions and data
collection procedures for use in epidemiological studies in Athletics (track and field):
consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:483–90.
24 Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, et al. Importance of events per independent
variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of
regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1503–10.
25 Knol MJ, VanderWeele TJ. Recommendations for presenting analyses of effect
modification and interaction. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:514–20.
26 Malisoux L, Nielsen RO, Urhausen A, et al. A step towards understanding the
mechanisms of running-related injuries. J Sci Med Sport 2015;18:523–8.
27 Videbaek S, Bueno AM, Nielsen RO, et al. Incidence of running-related injuries per
1000 h of running in different types of runners: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Sports Med 2015;45:1017–26.
28 O’Leary K, Vorpahl KA, Heiderscheit B. Effect of cushioned insoles on impact forces
during running. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2008;98:36–41.
29 De Wit B, De Clercq D, Lenoir M. The effect of varying midsole hardness on impact
forces and foot motion during foot contact in running. J Appl Biomech
1995;11:395–406.
30 Shorten M, Mientjes M. The ‘heel impact’force peak during running is neither
‘heel’nor ‘impact’and does not quantify shoe cushioning effects. Footwear Sci
2011;3:41–58.
31 Cheung RT, Chung RC, Ng GY. Efficacies of different external controls for excessive
foot pronation: a meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2011;45:743–51.
Malisoux L, et al.Br J Sports Med 2016;0:1–7. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031 7
Original article
group.bmj.com on January 9, 2016 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
blinding
controlled trial with participant and assessor
motion control shoes: a randomised
Injury risk in runners using standard or
Axel Urhausen and Daniel Theisen
Laurent Malisoux, Nicolas Chambon, Nicolas Delattre, Nils Gueguen,
published online January 8, 2016Br J Sports Med
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2016/01/08/bjsports-2015-095031
Updated information and services can be found at:
These include:
Material
Supplementary
DC1.html
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/suppl/2016/01/08/bjsports-2015-095031.
Supplementary material can be found at:
References
#BIBL
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2016/01/08/bjsports-2015-095031
This article cites 31 articles, 12 of which you can access for free at:
Open Access
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/non-commercial. See:
provided the original work is properly cited and the use is
non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms,
permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work
Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative
service
Email alerting box at the top right corner of the online article.
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
Collections
Topic Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections
(206)Open access
Notes
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To request permissions go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To order reprints go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
group.bmj.com on January 9, 2016 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
