A consensus definition and rating scale for minimalist shoes

Jean-Francois Esculier, Blaise Dubois, Clermont E Dionne, Jean Leblond, Jean-Sébastien Roy, Jean-Francois Esculier, Blaise Dubois, Clermont E Dionne, Jean Leblond, Jean-Sébastien Roy

Abstract

Background: While minimalist running shoes may have an influence on running biomechanics and on the incidence of overuse injuries, the term "minimalist" is currently used without standardisation. The objectives of this study were to reach a consensus on a standard definition of minimalist running shoes, and to develop and validate a rating scale that could be used to determine the degree of minimalism of running shoes, the Minimalist Index (MI).

Methods: For this modified Delphi study, 42 experts from 11 countries completed four electronic questionnaires on an optimal definition of minimalist shoes and on elements to include within the MI. Once MI was developed following consensus, 85 participants subjectively ranked randomly assigned footwear models from the most to the least minimalist and rated their degree of minimalism using visual analog scales (VAS), before evaluating the same footwear models using MI. A subsample of thirty participants reassessed the same shoes on another occasion. Construct validity and inter- and intra-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]; Gwet's AC1) of MI were evaluated.

Results: The following definition of minimalist shoes was agreed upon by 95 % of participants: "Footwear providing minimal interference with the natural movement of the foot due to its high flexibility, low heel to toe drop, weight and stack height, and the absence of motion control and stability devices". Characteristics to be included in MI were weight, flexibility, heel to toe drop, stack height and motion control/stability devices, each subscale carrying equal weighing (20 %) on final score. Total MI score was highly correlated with VAS (r = 0.91). A significant rank effect (p < 0.001) confirmed the MI's discriminative validity. Excellent intra- and inter-rater reliability was found for total MI score (ICC = 0.84-0.99) and for weight, stack height, heel to toe drop and flexibility subscales (AC1 = 0.82-0.99), while good inter-rater reliability was found for technologies (AC1 = 0.73).

Conclusion: This standardised definition of minimalist shoes developed by an international panel of experts will improve future research on minimalist shoes and clinical recommendations. MI's adequate validity and reliability will allow distinguishing running shoes based on their degree of minimalism, and may help to decrease injuries related to footwear transition.

Keywords: Consensus statement; Delphi; Foot; Footwear; Reliability; Running; Running injuries; Validity.

References

    1. Statistics Canada. Canadian community health survey 2011–2012 data dictionary. 2012. 378 p.
    1. van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M, van Os AG, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41:469–80. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.033548.
    1. Ryan M, Valiant G, McDonald K, Taunton J. The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:715–21. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.069849.
    1. Nielsen RO, Buist I, Parner ET, Nohr EA, Sorensen H, Lind M, Rasmussen S. Foot pronation is not associated with increased injury risk in novice runners wearing a neutral shoe. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:440–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092202.
    1. Theisen D, Malisoux L, Genin J, Delattre N, Seil R, Urhausen A. Influence of midsole hardness of standard cushioned shoes on running-related injury risk. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:371–6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092613.
    1. Knapik J, Trone D, Tchandja J, Jones B. Injury-reduction effectiveness of prescribing running shoes on the basis of foot arch height: summary of military investigations. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44:805–12. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.5342.
    1. Richards CE, Magin PJ, Callister R. Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based? Br J Sports Med. 2009;43:159–62. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.046680.
    1. Lieberman DE. What we can learn about running from barefoot running: an evolutionary medical perspective. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2012;40:63–72. doi: 10.1097/JES.0b013e31824ab210.
    1. Bertelsen ML, Jensen JF, Nielsen MH, Nielsen RO, Rasmussen S. Footstrike patterns among novice runners wearing a conventional, neutral running shoe. Gait Posture. 2013;38:354–6. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.11.022.
    1. Bonacci J, Vicenzino B, Spratford W, Collins P. Take your shoes off to reduce patellofemoral joint stress during running. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:425–8. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092160.
    1. Lilley K, Stiles V, Dixon S. The influence of motion control shoes on the running gait of mature and young females. Gait Posture. 2013;37:331–5. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.07.026.
    1. Mullen S, Toby EB. Adolescent Runners: The Effect of Training Shoes on Running Kinematics. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013;33:453–7. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e31829241dc.
    1. Hall JP, Barton C, Jones PR, Morrissey D. The biomechanical differences between barefoot and shod distance running: a systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2013;43:1335–53. doi: 10.1007/s40279-013-0084-3.
    1. Lohman EB, Balan Sackiriyas KS, Swen RW. A comparison of the spatiotemporal parameters, kinematics, and biomechanics between shod, unshod, and minimally supported running as compared to walking. Phys Ther Sport. 2011;12:151–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.09.004.
    1. Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D'Andrea S, Davis IS, Mang'eni RO, Pitsiladis Y. Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature. 2010;463:531–5. doi: 10.1038/nature08723.
    1. Squadrone R, Gallozzi C. Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2009;49:6–13.
    1. Murley GS, Landorf KB, Menz HB, Bird AR. Effect of foot posture, foot orthoses and footwear on lower limb muscle activity during walking and running: a systematic review. Gait Posture. 2009;29:172–87. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.08.015.
    1. Wakeling JM, Pascual SA, Nigg BM. Altering muscle activity in the lower extremities by running with different shoes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34:1529–32. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200209000-00021.
    1. Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R. Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:1519–25. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182514a88.
    1. Perl DP, Daoud AI, Lieberman DE. Effects of footwear and strike type on running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:1335–43. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318247989e.
    1. Hanson NJ, Berg K, Deka P, Meendering JR, Ryan C. Oxygen Cost of Running Barefoot vs. Running Shod. Int J Sports Med. 2011;32:401–6. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1265203.
    1. Fuller J, Bellenger C, Thewlis D, Tsiros M, Buckley J. The Effect of Footwear on Running Performance and Running Economy in Distance Runners. Sports Med 2014; doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0283-6.
    1. Rixe J, Gallo R, Silvis M. The barefoot debate: can minimalist shoes reduce running-related injuries? Curr Sports Med Rep. 2012;11:160–5. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0b013e31825640a6.
    1. Giandolini M, Horvais N, Farges Y, Samozino P, Morin JB. Impact reduction through long-term intervention in recreational runners: midfoot strike pattern versus low-drop/low-heel height footwear. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113:2077–90. doi: 10.1007/s00421-013-2634-7.
    1. McCarthy C, Fleming N, Donne B, Blanksby B. 12 weeks of simulated barefoot running changes foot-strike patterns in female runners. Int J Sports Med. 2014;35:443–50.
    1. Warne JP, Kilduff SM, Gregan BC, Nevill AM, Moran KA, Warrington GD. A 4-week instructed minimalist running transition and gait-retraining changes plantar pressure and force. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24:964–73. doi: 10.1111/sms.12121.
    1. Squadrone R, Rodano R, Hamill J, Preatoni E. Acute effect of different minimalist shoes on foot strike pattern and kinematics in rearfoot strikers during running. J Sports Sci 2014; doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.989534.
    1. Hein T, Grau S. Can minimal running shoes imitate barefoot heel-toe running patterns? A comparison of lower leg kinematics. J Sport Health Sci. 2014;3:67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2014.03.002.
    1. Willson JD, Bjorhus JS, Williams DS, 3rd, Butler RJ, Porcari JP, Kernozek TW. Short-term changes in running mechanics and foot strike pattern after introduction to minimalistic footwear. PM R. 2014;6:34–43. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.08.602.
    1. Willy RW, Davis IS. Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46:318–23. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182a595d2.
    1. Bonacci J, Saunders P, Hicks A, Rantalainen T, Vicenzino B, Spratford W. Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot: a biomechanical study. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:387–92. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091837.
    1. Ridge ST, Johnson AW, Mitchell UH, Hunter I, Robinson E, Rich BS, Brown SD. Foot bone marrow edema after a 10-wk transition to minimalist running shoes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:1363–8. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182874769.
    1. Ryan M, Elashi M, Newsham-West R, Taunton J. Examining injury risk and pain perception in runners using minimalist footwear. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:1257–62. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-092061.
    1. Goss D, Gross M. Relationships among self-reported shoe type, footstrike pattern, and injury incidence. US Army Med Dep J 2012;Oct-Dec:25–30. Please see PubMed record here:
    1. Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR, Nachemson AL, Buchbinder R, Walker BF, Wyatt M, Cassidy JD, Rossignol M, Leboeuf-Yde C, Hartvigsen J, Leino-Arjas P, Latza U, Reis S, Gil Del Real MT, Kovacs FM, Oberg B, Cedraschi C, Bouter LM, Koes BW, Picavet HS, van Tulder MW, Burton K, Foster NE, Macfarlane GJ, Thomas E, Underwood M, Waddell G, Shekelle P, Volinn E, Von Korff M. A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies. Spine. 2008;33:95–103. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e7f94.
    1. Linstone H, Turoff M. The Delphi Method: Technique and applications. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; 1975.
    1. Gwet KL. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement Among Raters. 3. Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC; 2012.
    1. Wongpakaran N, Wongpakaran T, Wedding D, Gwet KL. A comparison of Cohen’s Kappa and Gwet’s AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples. BMC Med Res Method. 2013;13:61. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-61.
    1. Chambon N, Delattre N, Guéguen N, Berton N, Rao G. Is midsole thickness a key parameter for the running pattern. Gait Posture. 2014;40:58–63. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.02.005.
    1. TenBroek TM, Rodrigues PA, Frederick EC, Hamill J. Midsole Thickness Affects Running Patterns in Habitual Rearfoot Strikers During a Sustained Run. J Appl Biomech. 2014;30:521–8. doi: 10.1123/jab.2012-0224.
    1. Chambon N, Delattre N, Berton N, Guéguen N, Rao G. The effect of shoe drop on running pattern. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2013;16:97–8. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2013.815919.
    1. Hamill J, Russell EM, Gruber AH, Miller R. Impact characteristics in shod and barefoot running. Footwear Sci. 2011;3:33–40. doi: 10.1080/19424280.2010.542187.
    1. Streiner D, Norman G. Reliability. In: Streiner D, Norman G, editors. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 1995. pp. 104–27.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera