Effects of gait retraining with focus on impact versus gait retraining with focus on cadence on pain, function and lower limb kinematics in runners with patellofemoral pain: Protocol of a randomized, blinded, parallel group trial with 6-month follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is one of the most prevalent injuries in runners. Unfortunately, a substantial part of injured athletes do not recover fully from PFP in the long-term. Although previous studies have shown positive effects of gait retraining in this condition, retraining protocols often lack clinical applicability because they are time-consuming, costly for patients and require a treadmill. The primary objective of this study will be to compare the effects of two different two-week partially supervised gait retraining programs, with a control intervention; on pain, function and lower limb kinematics of runners with PFP. It will be a single-blind randomized clinical trial with six-month follow-up. The study will be composed of three groups: a group focusing on impact (group A), a group focusing on cadence (group B), and a control group that will not perform any intervention (group C). The primary outcome measure will be pain assessed using the Visual Analog Pain scale during running. Secondary outcomes will include pain during daily activities (usual), symptoms assessed using the Patellofemoral Disorders Scale and lower limb running kinematics in the frontal (contralateral pelvic drop; hip adduction) and sagittal planes (foot inclination; tibia inclination; ankle dorsiflexion; knee flexion) assessed using the MyoResearch 3.14-MyoVideo (Noraxon U.S.A. Inc.). The study outcomes will be evaluated before (t0), immediately after (t2), and six months (t24) after starting the protocol. Our hypothesis is that both partially supervised gait retraining programs will be more effective in reducing pain, improving symptoms, and modifying lower limb kinematics during running compared with the control group, and that the positive effects from these programs will persist for six months. Also, we believe that one gait retraining group will not be superior to the other. Results from this study will help improve care in runners with PFP, while maximizing clinical applicability as well as time and cost-effectiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".