The effectiveness of customised 3D-printed insoles on perceived pain, comfort, and completion time among frequent Park Runners: Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (The ZOLES RCT)

BACKGROUND

Running, a popular recreational activity, often leads to the experience of pain and discomfort among participants impacting performance and participation longevity. The ZOLES trial evaluates customised 3D-printed insoles for reducing pain in frequent parkrunners aged 35 and over. An innovative process of foot-scanning and responses to questions relating to size, pain, discomfort, and previous medical conditions are combined leading to the production of personalised 3D-printed orthotics.

METHODS

The ZOLES trial is a pragmatic, outcome assessor blinded, randomised, controlled, superiority trial involving 200 recreational runners, randomised to receive either customised 3D-printed insoles (ZOLES) or to a "do-as-usual" control group. The study follows a robust protocol, ensuring adherence to established guidelines for clinical trials, and is based at St Mary's University, Twickenham, London. The primary outcome is change in running-related pain over a 10-week period, assessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes include overall pain and discomfort, running-related comfort, 5k-completion time, time-loss due to injuries, running exposure, and adherence to the intervention. A balanced-block randomisation process is stratified by sex and parkrun location, and an intention-to-treat analyses will be employed on all outcomes in the primary trial report. The trial includes a 52-week post-market surveillance to assess long-term effects of the customised insoles.

DISCUSSION

The ZOLES trial aims to provide insights into real-world applicability and effectiveness of customised 3D-printed insoles in reducing running-related pain and enhancing overall running experience. Despite the limitation of a subjective primary outcome measure without participant blinding, the methodological rigor, including external outcome assessment and data handling, we anticipate results that are academically credible and applicable in real-world settings The results of this trial may have important implications for runners, clinicians, and the sports footwear industry, as evidence for the use of individualised insoles to improve running experience and prevention of pain may become evident.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial identifier NCT06034210 on September 4, 2023, and publicly posted on September 13, 2023 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06034210).

PROTOCOL VERSION

Version 1, September 27, 2023.

In training for a marathon: Runners and running-related injury prevention

OBJECTIVE

To investigate which preventive measures runners use when preparing for a half- or full-marathon and whether the use of these measures at baseline and during the preparation-period differs between runners who sustained no/non-substantial running-related injuries (NSIRs) or substantial running-related injuries (SIRs).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

16-week period before the Utrecht Marathon.

PARTICIPANTS

Runners who subscribed for the half- or full-marathon.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The occurrence of RRIs was registered every 2-weeks, using the Dutch version of the Oslo Sport Trauma Research Center (OSTRC) questionnaire on Health Problems. The OSTRC was used to differentiate between runners with SIRs (question 2/3 score>12) and NSIRs (question 2/3 score<13). The use of different preventive measures, was registered every 4-weeks.

RESULTS

51.6% of the runners reported at least one RRI in the 12-months prior to this study (history of RRIs). The SIRs with a history of RRIs more often asked for running shoe advice than NSIRs with a history of RRIs (67.9%vs43.4%, P < 0.05); 18.9% of the SIRs with a history of RRIs used supportive materials for knee and/or ankle versus 0% of NSIRs with a history of RRIs (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SIRs with a history of RRIs might be using their preventive measures for symptom reduction or secondary prevention.

An evaluation of the training determinants of marathon performance: A meta-analysis with meta-regression

OBJECTIVES

Marathoners rely on expert-opinion and the anecdotal advice of their peers when devising their training plans for an upcoming race. The accumulation of results from multiple scientific studies has the potential to clarify the precise training requirements for the marathon. The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of available literature to determine if a dose-response relationship exists between a series of training behaviours and marathon performance.

DESIGN

Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple literature sources was undertaken to identify observational and interventional studies of elite and recreational marathon (42.2km) runners.

RESULTS

Eighty-five studies which included 137 cohorts of runners (25% female) were included in the meta-regression, with average weekly running distance, number of weekly runs, maximum running distance completed in a single week, number of runs ≥32km completed in the pre-marathon training block, average running pace during training, distance of the longest run and hours of running per week used as covariates. Separately conducted univariate random effects meta-regression models identified a negative statistical association between each of the above listed training behaviours and marathon performance (R² 0.38-0.81, p<0.001), whereby increases in a given training parameter coincided with faster marathon finish times. Meta-analysis revealed the rate of non-finishers in the marathon was 7.27% (95% CI 6.09%-8.65%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data can be used by athletes and coaches to inform the development of marathon training regimes that are specific to a given target finish time.