Systematic Review of the Role of Footwear Constructions in Running Biomechanics: Implications for Running-Related Injury and Performance

Table 2. Summary of the studies on midsole effect (n = 19).

Reference	Shoe Conditions	Tested running Speed (m/s)	Subject Info (Numbers, Sex, Age, Landing type)	Testing Protocol	Outcome		PEDro Score
Reference	Shoe Conditions	Tested running Speed (m/s)	Subject Info (Numbers, Sex, Age, Landing type)	Testing Protocol	Performance related	Injury related	PEDro Score
Baltich et al. (2015)	1. Asker C40 (Soft) 2. Asker C52 (Medium) 3. Asker C65 (Hard)	3.33 ± 0.15	93, M=47, F=46, rearfoot striker Group1:16-20yr Group2:21-35yr Group3:36-60yr Group4:61-75 yr	30-m overground running	Soft â†‘ ankle stiffness than Medium & Hard; Female Soft â†‘ knee stiffness than Medium&Hard; Male Soft â†‘ knee stiffness than Medium	Soft â†‘ vGRF impact peak than Medium & Hard	6
Chambon et al. (2014)	1. Barefoot (BF) 2. 0-mm midsole (MT0) 3. 2-mm midsole (MT2) 4. 4-mm midsole (MT4) 5. 8-mm midsole (MT8) 6. 16-mm midsole (MT16)	3.3	15, M, 23.9, rearfoot striker	Overground running	BF & MT0 â†“ stance-phase duration than MT16; BF â†‘ initial plantarflexion than shoe condition; BF â†‘ strike index than shoe condition; BF â†‘ ankle dorsiflexion but â†“ knee flexion during stance; BF â†“ max knee joint moments than MT0 & MT4; â†’ hip & knee flexion angles at TD.	â†’ peak GRF impact, peak tibial acceleration.	6
Dixon et al., (2015)	1. A neutral shoe with an average hardness of 52 Asker C (CON); 2. Medially-52 Asker C lateral -60 Asker C (LAT1); 3. Medially-52 Asker C lateral -70 Asker C (LAT2);	3	10, F, >50 years, NA	Overground running	LAT1 â†“adduction movement than CON	LAT2â†‘ max 1st loading rate & eversion movement than CON; â†’ peak knee abductor moment and peak rearfoot eversion.	6
Hardin & Hamill, (2002)	1. Shore A40 (Soft) 2. Shore A55 midsole (Medium) 3. Shore A70 midsole (Hard)	3.4	24, M, NA, rearfoot striker	Treadmill downhill running	â†’ peak tibial acceleration.	NA	6
Hardin et al., (2004)	1. Shore A40 midsole (Soft) 2. Shore A70 midsole (Hard)	3.4	12, M, NA, rearfoot striker	Treadmill running	Hard midsole â†‘ peak ankle dorsiflexion velocity.	NA	6
Law et al. (2018)	1.1-mm midsole thickness (MT1) 2.5-mm midsole thickness (MT5) 3.9-mm midsole thickness (MT9) 4.21-mm midsole thickness (MT21) 5.25-mm midsole thickness (MT25) 29-mm midsole thickness (MT29);	Self-paced	15, M, 31.4, rearfoot striker	Treadmill running	Thinner midsole (MT1 & MT5) â†“ contact time than MT25 & MT29; â†’ footstrike angle, cadence & stride length.	Thinner midsole (MT1 & MT5) â†‘ vertical loading rates than (MT25 & MT29).	6
Maclean, Davis, & Hamill, (2009)	1.Asker C70 midsole (Hard) 2.Asker C55 midsole (Medium) 3.Asker C40 (Soft)	4.0 ± 5%	12, F, 19-35, Rearfoot striker with iliotibial band or patellofemoral pain syndrome	Overground running	Hard shoe â†“ Max rearfoot eversion velocity.	NA	6
Nigg et al., (2011)	1.Asker C40 (Soft) 2.Asker C52 (Medium) 3.Asker C65 (Hard)	3.33 ± 0.17	54, M=36, F=18, 33.9, rearfoot striker	30-m overground running	â†’ all frequency spectral or time domain parameters of gastrocnemius medialis, biceps femoris and vastus medialis.	NA	6
Oriwol et al., (2011)	7 dual-density shoe condition: Medial dual density midsole elements with 62 Asker C 1. M1 is the neutral shoe. 2. M2 – 36 mm 3. M3 – 52 mm 4. M4 – 58 mm 5. M5 – 79 mm 6. M6 – 89 mm 7. M7 – 104 mm	3.5 ± 0.1	16, M, 29.4, rearfoot striker	Overground running	â†’ all rearfoot motion variables.	NA	6
Sterzing et al., (2013)	All shoe with Asker C50 MF 1.Soft-RF/Soft-FF (SS) 2.Medium-RF/Medium- FF (MM) 3.Hard-RF/Hard-FF (HH) 4.Soft-RF/Hard-FF (SH) 5.Hard-RF/Soft-FF (HS)	3.3 ± 0.1	28, M, 23.8, rearfoot striker	13-m overground running	Softer â†“ max plantarflexion & pronation velocity than stiffer shoes; MM â†“ sagittal footstrike angle than SH & HS; â†’ Contact time	SH, SS, & MM â†“ max 1st loading rate than HH, HS; SH â†“ max 2nd loading rate than MM, HH & HS; SS â†“ max 2nd loading rate than HH & HS; MM â†“ max 2nd loading rate than HH.	6
Sterzing et al. (2015)	1. Soft medial/Hard Lateral (SMH) 2.Medium medial/Medium lateral (MMM) 3.Hard medial/Soft lateral (HMS) 4.Very Hard medial/Very Soft lateral (VHMVS)	3.3 ±10%	24, M, 21.8, rearfoot striker	Overground running	SMH â†‘ perceived softer at medial midsole than HMS; MMM â†‘ perceived softer at medial midsole than HMS & VHMVS; SMH â†‘ ground contact time than HMS & VHMVS; SMH â†‘ max 1st loading rate MMM & VHMVS; VHMVS â†“ maximum inversion at touchdown than all other shoe condition; â†’Cushioning, stability & propulsion during push-off	VHMVS â†‘ PP at medial region than SMH & MMM; VHMVS â†‘ force-time integral at rearfoot than HMS & SMH; VHMVSC force-time integral at medical region than all other shoes; SMH â†“ force-time integral at centre than MMM & VHMVS; SMH â†‘ force-time integral at lateral region than all other shoes	6
Stefanyshyn et al., (2000)	1.Control shoe 2. Stiff midsole shoe (Stiff) 3.Very stiff midsole shoe (Very stiff)	4.0 ± 0.4	5, M, 32, rearfoot striker	Overground running	Stiff â†“ energy lost at MTP; â†’ energy generation & absorption at ankle, knee & hip; â†’ energy stored & reused at MTP.	NA	6
Teoh et al., (2013)	1. medial stiffness 1C, lateral stiffness 1.6C (VSS) 2. same medial & lateral stiffness 1C (CS )	self- selected speeds	M=16, F=14, 22.6,	Overground running	â†’running speed	VSS â†“ the peak EKAM than CS; VSS â†“ the maximum medial GRF than CS â†‘ in anterior GRF than CS.	6
Theisen et al., (2014)	1.Soft midsole shoe (Soft) 2.Hard midsole shoe (Hard)	2.61-2.69	247, M=136, F=111, 41.8, leisure-time distance runners	Overground running	NA	â†’ running-related injury. â†’ Injury location, type, severity or category.	8
Willwacher et al. (2014)	1.Control (Control) 2.Medium stiffness (Medium) 3.High stiffness (High)	3.5 ±5%	19, M, 25.3, rearfoot striker	25m overground running	Medium & High â†‘ overall Stance time & push-off time than Control; High â†“ Negative work & â†‘ positive work at MTP than Control & Medium. â†’Effective contact time & braking time.	NA	6
Wakeling, & Nigg, (2002)	1.Shore C61 midsole (Hard) 2.Shore C41 midsole (Soft)	2.5-4.2	3, M, 26, NA 3, F, 23.3, NA	Overground running	â†’EMG intensities varied in different shoe condition; â†’ running velocity, stride duration	NA	6
Wang et al. (2012)	1.Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) 2.Polyurethane -1 (PU1) 3.Polyurethane -2 (PU2)	NA	15, M, 21.2, rearfoot striker	Overground outdoor running	EVA & PU-1 â†“ peak forces than PU2 at all running distance; PU-1 â†“ peak forces at 200-300 km than 0 km; EVA â†‘ energy return performance than PU1&PU2	NA	6
Wunsch et al., (2016)	1.Leaf spring-structured midsole (Leaf) 2.Standard foam (Foam)	2 mmol/l blood lactate speed	10, M, 33.1, long-distance rearfoot striker	Overground running	Leaf â†‘ stride length but â†“ stride rate & oxygen consumption than foam; â†’ strike pattern	NA	6
Wunsch et al., (2017)	1.Leaf spring-structured midsole (Leaf) 2.Standard foam (Foam)	3.0 ± 0.2	9, M, 32.9, long-distance rearfoot striker	Indoor track	LEAFâ†“ energy absorption at hip joint as well as energy generation at ankle joint; LEAFâ†“ muscle forces of the soleus, gastrocnemius lateralis & gastrocnemius medialis	NA	6

Yr = year, vGRF = vertical ground reaction force, MF = midfoot, RF = rearfoot, FF = forefoot, Max = maximum, MTP = metatarsophalangeal, VO₂ = oxygen consumption, EMG = electromyography, RMS = root mean square, RoM = range of motion, NA = Not available, TD= Touch down.