The Role of Footwear, Foot Orthosis and Training-Related Strategies in the Prevention of Bone Stress Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 16(3): 721-743, 2023. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of footwear, foot orthoses and training-related strategies to prevent lower extremity bone stress injury (BSI). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Four bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2021): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the risk of developing a BSI when using particular footwear, foot orthoses or training-related strategies such as muscle strengthening, stretching, and mechanical loading exercises. Results: Eleven studies were included in this systematic review. When wearing foot orthoses, the risk ratio of developing a BSI on any lower extremity bone is 0.47 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.87; p = 0.02). When doing pre-exercise dynamic stretching, the risk ratio of suffering a tibial BSI is 1.06 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.68; p = 0.79). No meta-analyses could be performed for footwear or training-related strategies. The quality of evidence for all these results is low considering the high risk of bias in each study, the low number of studies and the low number of cases in each study. Conclusion: This systematic review reveals the lack of high-quality studies in BSI prevention. Based on studies at high risk of bias, foot orthoses could potentially help prevent BSIs in the military setting. It is still unknown whether footwear and training-related strategies have any benefits. It is crucial to further investigate potential BSI prevention strategies in women and athletes. Research is also needed to assess the influence of running shoes and loading management on BSI incidence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it