There is no difference in footstrike pattern distribution in recreational runners with or without anterior knee pain

Fukusawa, Leandro; Stoddard, Ryan J.; Lópes, Alexandre Días

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.03.020

Cited by 2 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The definition of injury varied across many studies, with only 7 studies demonstrating a similar time-loss definition ranging from 1 session 18 to 1 week, 14 , 25 , 45 , 66 2 weeks, 48 and 3 months of interrupted training. 21 One study 53 neglected to define injury.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to FSP classification and testing, 6 studies classified FSP into distinct FSPs (RFS, MFS, FFS, and non-RFS [MFS or FFS pattern combined]) via visual analysis of sagittal plane video recordings of FCAs 11 , 21 , 32 , 61 , 66 or self-reporting. 25 In contrast, 7 studies 14 , 15 , 18 , 37 , 45 , 48 , 53 examined FST on 2 continuous scales: (1) initial ground contact angles (FCA, AFA) via 3D motion analysis 14 , 15 , 18 , 53 and (2) location of initial point of contact relative to foot length (SI) using pressure-sensitive insoles 45 and force plate analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 37 , 48 There were also differences in testing conditions, with 3 studies 18 , 37 , 48 analyzing running on an overground surface within a laboratory; 6, on a treadmill 14 , 15 , 32 , 45 , 53 , 61 ; and 2, on an outdoor runway. 21 , 66 One study analyzed running on both an outdoor track and a treadmill, 11 reporting identical FSP categorization across surfaces. One study asked participants to self-report their FSP through an online survey.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding continuous measurements of FST assessment, FCA, AFA, and SI have been analyzed using force plate and 3D motion analysis 14 , 15 , 18 , 37 , 48 , 53 and pressure-sensitive insoles. 45 Meanwhile, categorically, FSP was determined using sagittal plane video camera recordings, 11 , 21 , 32 , 61 , 66 and through self-reported FSP methods via an online survey. 25 However, accuracy of self-reporting is limited, with only 44% to 69% of runners able to accurately report their FSP, 4 , 26 which may explain differences in reported prevalence between Goss and Gross 25 (RFS, 31%; MFS, 43%; FFS, 20%) and other studies (RFS, 69-97%; MFS, 3-24%; FFS, 2-31%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 1 Some studies 57 , 66 have also combined MFS and FFS patterns, grouping them together as non-RFS. Studies that have reported FSP classifications have used visual analysis of sagittal plane video recordings, 11 , 21 , 32 , 61 , 66 categorization of continuous measures (foot and ankle contact angles and strike index [SI]), 14 , 15 , 18 , 45 , 48 , 53 or self-reporting methods. 25…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Risk Factors for Injuries in Runners: A Systematic Review of Foot Strike Technique and Its Classification at Impact

Burke

Dillon

O’Connor

et al. 2021

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It has been suggested that foot strike technique (FST) at initial contact is related to running-related injuries (RRIs). Purpose: To explore the relationship between FST and RRIs. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Included were studies published in the English language that explored the relationship between FST and RRIs between January 1960 and November 2020. Results were extracted and collated. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was applied to synthesize the quality of evidence. Results: We reviewed 13 studies exploring the relationship between FST and RRIs. Of these, 6 studies reported FST categorically (foot strike pattern [FSP]), and 7 reported continuous measures (foot contact angle, ankle flexion angle, and strike index). Three of the 6 studies looking at categorical FSP found rearfoot strikers have a significantly greater retrospective injury rate than do non– rearfoot strikers, with 1 other study noting a greater risk associated with midfoot and forefoot strike. Regarding the continuous measures of FST, only 1 of the 7 studies reported a significant relationship with RRIs. Conclusion: There was low evidence to suggest a relationship between FST (or its subcategories of categorical FSP and continuous measures) and RRIs. While two-thirds of the categorical studies found a relationship between FSP and RRIs, these studies were very low quality, with limitations such as retrospective study design, low participant numbers, and poor FSP assessment methods. More large-scale prospective studies are required.

show abstract