Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Published Online First: 18 April 2008. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.046680
British Journal of Sports Medicine 2009;43:159-162
Copyright © 2009 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine.

Reviews

Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based?

C E Richards1,2, P J Magin1, R Callister2

1 Discipline of General Practice, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Australia
2 School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Australia

Dr C Richards, Discipline of General Practice, Bowman Building, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308, Australia; craig.richards{at}newcastle.edu.au

Objectives: To determine whether the current practice of prescribing distance running shoes featuring elevated cushioned heels and pronation control systems tailored to the individual’s foot type is evidence-based.

Data sources: MEDLINE (1950–May 2007), CINAHL (1982–May 2007), EMBASE (1980–May 2007), PsychInfo (1806–May 2007), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2nd Quarter 2007), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (2nd Quarter 2007), SPORTSDiscus (1985–May 2007) and AMED (1985–May 2007).

Review methods: English language articles were identified via keyword and medical subject headings (MeSH) searches of the above electronic databases. With these searches and the subsequent review process, controlled trials or systematic reviews were sought in which the study population included adult recreational or competitive distance runners, the exposure was distance running, the intervention evaluated was a running shoe with an elevated cushioned heel and pronation control systems individualised to the wearer’s foot type, and the outcome measures included either running injury rates, distance running performance, osteoarthritis risk, physical activity levels, or overall health and wellbeing. The quality of these studies and their findings were then evaluated.

Results: No original research that met the study criteria was identified either directly or via the findings of the six systematic reviews identified.

Conclusion: The prescription of this shoe type to distance runners is not evidence-based.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Another major win for physiotherapy — curing patellofemoral pain
Karim M Khan
Br. J. Sports Med. 2009 43: 157-158. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • (2009). News and notes. Inj. Prev. 15: 214-214 [Full Text]  

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Negating the safety advantage in running shoe design: perceived risk affecting performance?
Tony H. Reinhardt-Rutland
BJSM Online, 23 Jun 2009 [Full text]

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

 

The journal is co-owned by and the official journal of BASEM

Official journal of ECOSEP

Available online to all members of ACSP, AMSSM and SMNZ