Can Foot Orthoses Benefit Symptomatic Runners? Mechanistic and Clinical Insights Through a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Running is a widely practiced sport worldwide associated with a host of benefits on cardiovascular, metabolic, musculoskeletal, and mental health, but often leads to musculoskeletal overuse injuries. The prescription of a foot orthosis (FO) is common to manage musculoskeletal impairments during physical activity or functional tasks. Although FOs are frequently prescribed by clinicians for symptomatic populations of runners, the existing literature supporting the prescription of FOs in runners has predominantly focused on either uninjured individuals or a mix of uninjured and symptomatic populations. Thus, the effects of FOs on the treatment and/or prevention of overuse running injuries need to be investigated to guide future research and assist clinicians in their decision-making process. MAIN BODY: This scoping review aimed to evaluate the immediate and long-term effects of FOs on lower limb biomechanics, neuromuscular parameters, and pain and disability in symptomatic runners, and to identify factors that may influence the effects of FOs. Five databases (CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched, resulting in 2536 studies. A total of 30 studies, published between 1992 and 2023 (730 symptomatic runners), were included following the removal of duplicates and the screening process. Wearing FOs while running is related to an immediate and a long-term decrease in pain and symptoms of overuse running injuries. Also, wearing FOs while running decreases eversion at the foot/ankle complex, leads to a more lateral plantar pressure at the heel and forefoot, and may change running motor control strategies. Finally, the effectiveness of FOs is influenced by its added features. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides recommendations for future research such as the need for standardized methods in describing FOs, considering participant characteristics such as foot morphology, and comparing different types of FOs. Also, this scoping review provides valuable insights for guiding the prescription and design of FOs, and suggests that integrating FOs into a comprehensive treatment plan may yield better results than standalone first-line treatments. Nonetheless, this scoping review highlights the need for future research to explore the optimal integration of FOs into injury-specific treatment plans.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".