| Title |
Barefoot Running: Does It Prevent Injuries?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-013-0093-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly Murphy, Emily J. Curry, Elizabeth G. Matzkin |
| Abstract |
Endurance running has evolved over the course of millions of years and it is now one of the most popular sports today. However, the risk of stress injury in distance runners is high because of the repetitive ground impact forces exerted. These injuries are not only detrimental to the runner, but also place a burden on the medical community. Preventative measures are essential to decrease the risk of injury within the sport. Common running injuries include patellofemoral pain syndrome, tibial stress fractures, plantar fasciitis, and Achilles tendonitis. Barefoot running, as opposed to shod running (with shoes), has recently received significant attention in both the media and the market place for the potential to promote the healing process, increase performance, and decrease injury rates. However, there is controversy over the use of barefoot running to decrease the overall risk of injury secondary to individual differences in lower extremity alignment, gait patterns, and running biomechanics. While barefoot running may benefit certain types of individuals, differences in running stance and individual biomechanics may actually increase injury risk when transitioning to barefoot running. The purpose of this article is to review the currently available clinical evidence on barefoot running and its effectiveness for preventing injury in the runner. Based on a review of current literature, barefoot running is not a substantiated preventative running measure to reduce injury rates in runners. However, barefoot running utility should be assessed on an athlete-specific basis to determine whether barefoot running will be beneficial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 26 | 33% |
| United States | 6 | 8% |
| Australia | 6 | 8% |
| Spain | 5 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Sweden | 2 | 3% |
| Ireland | 2 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 53 | 67% |
| Scientists | 18 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 486 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 468 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 132 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 81 | 17% |
| Researcher | 35 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 7% |
| Other | 85 | 17% |
| Unknown | 86 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 142 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 115 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 5% |
| Engineering | 15 | 3% |
| Other | 43 | 9% |
| Unknown | 103 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2021.
All research outputs
#505,429
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#481
of 2,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,765
of 212,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#6
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.