The role of footwear in improving running economy: a systematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials.

IF 3.9 2区综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES

Scientific Reports Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1038/s41598-025-88271-2

Liya Xu, Yifan Wang, Xu Wen

{"title":"The role of footwear in improving running economy: a systematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials.","authors":"Liya Xu, Yifan Wang, Xu Wen","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-88271-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to explore the impact of different types of footwear and footwear characteristics on the running economy (RE) of long-distance runners and providing guidance for running enthusiasts and clinical practice. A comprehensive search of Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscous, SCOPUS, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases from inception to April 2024 was performed. Trials evaluating the RE of adults participating in long-distance running included comparing different footwear characteristics. This review followed the PRISMA statement. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts to make a relevant shortlist, then retrieved and evaluated full texts against inclusion criteria for eligibility. Two independent reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of each included analysis by employing the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale (PEDro scale). The standardized mean difference (SMD) for the results of RE studies in each study was calculated. Of the 1338 records retrieved, 26 studies were identified in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Limited evidence indicated that compared with shod running, barefoot running (SMD = - 0.50 [95% CI - 0.86, - 0.14], P = 0.006) and minimalist running (SMD = - 0.62 [95% CI - 0.83, - 0.42], P < 0.00001) had a positive impact on RE. Compared with barefoot running, minimalist running did not show a beneficial effect (SMD = 0.37 [95% CI - 0.07, 0.81], P = 0.10) on RE. Additionally, compared with the control condition, RE showed some improvement with increased footwear longitudinal bending stiffness (SMD = - 0.53 [95% CI - 0.90, - 0.17], P = 0.005) and cushioning (SMD = - 0.33 [95% CI - 0.61, 0.06], P = 0.02). However, compared with control, RE did not change with footwear comfort (SMD = - 0.11 [95% CI - 0.42, 0.21], P = 0.51). Barefoot running or minimalist running may be more economical than shod running, high longitudinal bending stiffness and high cushioning shoes could improve RE.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"3963"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11787295/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88271-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to explore the impact of different types of footwear and footwear characteristics on the running economy (RE) of long-distance runners and providing guidance for running enthusiasts and clinical practice. A comprehensive search of Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscous, SCOPUS, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases from inception to April 2024 was performed. Trials evaluating the RE of adults participating in long-distance running included comparing different footwear characteristics. This review followed the PRISMA statement. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts to make a relevant shortlist, then retrieved and evaluated full texts against inclusion criteria for eligibility. Two independent reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of each included analysis by employing the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale (PEDro scale). The standardized mean difference (SMD) for the results of RE studies in each study was calculated. Of the 1338 records retrieved, 26 studies were identified in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Limited evidence indicated that compared with shod running, barefoot running (SMD = - 0.50 [95% CI - 0.86, - 0.14], P = 0.006) and minimalist running (SMD = - 0.62 [95% CI - 0.83, - 0.42], P < 0.00001) had a positive impact on RE. Compared with barefoot running, minimalist running did not show a beneficial effect (SMD = 0.37 [95% CI - 0.07, 0.81], P = 0.10) on RE. Additionally, compared with the control condition, RE showed some improvement with increased footwear longitudinal bending stiffness (SMD = - 0.53 [95% CI - 0.90, - 0.17], P = 0.005) and cushioning (SMD = - 0.33 [95% CI - 0.61, 0.06], P = 0.02). However, compared with control, RE did not change with footwear comfort (SMD = - 0.11 [95% CI - 0.42, 0.21], P = 0.51). Barefoot running or minimalist running may be more economical than shod running, high longitudinal bending stiffness and high cushioning shoes could improve RE.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

跑鞋在提高跑步经济性中的作用：对照试验荟萃分析的系统综述。

本系统综述旨在探讨不同鞋型及鞋型特征对长跑运动员跑步经济性（RE）的影响，为跑步爱好者和临床实践提供指导。对Web of Science、PubMed、SPORTDiscous、SCOPUS和中国知网（CNKI）数据库进行了自建站至2024年4月的综合检索。评价成人参加长跑的RE的试验包括比较不同的鞋类特征。这次审查是在PRISMA声明之后进行的。两名审稿人筛选标题和摘要，形成相关的入围名单，然后根据入选标准检索和评估全文。两名独立审稿人采用物理治疗证据数据库量表（PEDro量表）评估每个纳入分析的方法学质量。计算各研究中RE研究结果的标准化平均差（SMD）。在检索到的1338份记录中，有26项研究在系统评价和荟萃分析中被确定。有限的证据表明，与穿鞋跑步相比，赤脚跑步（SMD = - 0.50 [95% CI - 0.86, - 0.14], P = 0.006）和极简跑步(SMD = - 0.62 [95% CI - 0.83, - 0.42]， P

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-

CiteScore

7.50

自引率

4.30%

发文量

19567

审稿时长

3.9 months

期刊介绍： We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.