Pronation ControlPhase 3NCT00832195
Footwear and Injury Prevention Study
A Phase 3 study testing Neutral Running Shoe in people with Pronation Control, run by University of British Columbia at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to assess whether shoes that are more controlling for movement of the foot and ankle, compared to shoes that are less controlling, will reduce the overall number and severity of injuries experienced during a 13-week running programme. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 50 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Pronation Control
- What is being tested?
- Neutral Running Shoe
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 103 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Mar 2009to Dec 2009
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 50 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Adult, runner.
Who cannot join
- Not currently injured,
- No history of surgery to the lower extremity.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Footwear Prevention Study: Investigating the Effects of Running Shoe Pronation Control on the Risk of Injury
The purpose of this study is to assess whether shoes that are more controlling for movement of the foot and ankle, compared to shoes that are less controlling, will reduce the overall number and severity of injuries experienced during a 13-week running programme. Our hypothesis is that runners who wear more controlling footwear during the 13-week programme will experience less injury events.
Read the detailed description
The proposed study will be a non-blinded prospective randomized cohort design.
Subjects will include adult runners of both genders with no history of injury in the 6 months prior to study enrollment. Eligible participants will have no history of surgery or trauma to the lower extremity that might compromise their walking or running gait, and all subjects must be able to comfortably fit into their selected footwear.
Three different foot posture sub-group classifications will be recruited: neutral, mild to moderate, and excessive. The subjects' foot posture will be classified using the Foot Posture Index (Redmond et al. (2006)(1). Twenty four subjects are estimated to be required within each foot posture sub-group; therefore 72 subjects will be our goal for enrollment. Subjects within each foot posture sub-group will be randomized into one of two separate footwear conditions: both the neutral group and the mild to moderate pronator group will be divided to receive either a neutral cushioned running shoe (a.k.a. 'neutral shoe'), or a shoe with mild stability components for controlling overpronation (a.k.a. 'stability shoe'); participants in the excessive pronator sub-group will be randomized to receive either a 'stability shoe' or a shoe will aggressive motion controlling features (a.k.a. 'motion control shoe').
All subjects will undergo an initial baseline test, including an entrance interview for participant eligibility, training history, running injury history and documentation of lower extremity anthropometry (i.e. arch height, knee alignment, standing rearfoot position). Subjects will be randomized during their baseline test to their shoe condition and receive their shoes, training diary and running programme at that time.
Once all subjects have completed their baseline testing, the official running clinic start date will commence on the following Saturday. A running clinic is established so that all subjects will have a chance to meet together, along with knowledgeable run leaders and a study co-investigator (MR), in order to increase group cohesion and provide an opportunity for data monitoring, programme feedback and subject questions. All subjects will begin the running programme at the official running clinic start date. The programme is designed to prepare individuals for a half-marathon (21 kilometre) running event in 13 weeks. Subjects will run on their own time, as indicating in their running programme, for the rest of the week until meeting again the following Saturday. This schedule will be repeated for the entire 13 week duration of the programme.
Outcome variables of interest in this study include: 1) number of injury events, defined as a missed run workout that is associated with running related pain; 2) McGill Pain Questionnaire score(2) ; and 3) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) items for pain at rest, activities of daily living, during or immediately after running, respectively(3) . Outcome variables will be assessed at baseline, at the 6 week point in the running programme, and at the conclusion to the running programme.
All data will be entered into a spreadsheet and statistical analysis software package JMP Version 4.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). In calculating statistical power for subject recruitment, a 20% difference in the VAS pain scores across groups will be considered to be a clinically meaningful difference. Accordingly, assuming a standard deviation of 2.3 in the VAS scores, an alpha of 5% and a beta error-level of 10%, twenty four subjects will be required within each foot posture sub-group; therefore 69 subjects will be our goal for enrollment. Each foot posture sub-group will undergo its own analysis procedure. Levene's test of equality of variance will precede a factorial analysis of variance in determining whether there are significant main effects for time and footwear condition, as well as an interaction effect, for all three dependent (or outcome) variables. Alpha will be set at 0.05 for this study.
- Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: The Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech 2006;21:89-98.
- Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975; 1: 277-299.
- Wewers M.E. \& Lowe N.K. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing and Health 1990;13: 227-236.
- Conditions
- Pronation Control
- Being tested
- Motion Controlling Running Shoe, Neutral Running Shoe
- Keywords
- running, injury, pronation, footwear.
- Medical subject headings
- Wounds and Injuries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Motion Controlling Running ShoeDevice
Running shoe with thermoplastic mid-foot shank stiffener, denser durometer foam on medial aspect of mid-sole, reinforced heel counter, wider sole-plate, and lateral foam crash-pad.
Neutral Running ShoeDevice
Standard running shoe with single density mid-sole foam.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Footwear with motion controlling elements built into construction in order to reduce pronation of the foot and ankle during running. Receives: Device: Motion Controlling Running Shoe |
| 2 | Active comparator | Footwear with standard neutral stabilization elements for the foot and ankle during running. Receives: Device: Neutral Running Shoe |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Injury status, as measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and at the end of the 13-week programme
Measured: 13 weeks
Secondary outcomes (1)
Pain levels, as measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and at the end of the 13-week programme
Measured: 13 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Jan 2009 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2009
- Primary completionDec 2009
- Study completionDec 2009
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Pronation ControlStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of British ColumbiaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 103 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of British Columbia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Jack Taunton, MD, Principal investigator, University of British ColumbiaMichael Ryan, Study director, University of British Columbia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00832195
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- H08-02995
- Status last verified
- Feb 2014
- First submitted
- 28 Jan 2009
- Last updated
- 19 Feb 2014
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Feb 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Footwear Prevention Study: Investigating the Effects of Running Shoe Pronation Control on the Risk of Injury
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00832195
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- H08-02995
- Conditions
- Pronation Control
- Keywords
- running, injury, pronation, footwear.
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 103 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of British ColumbiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Mar 2009
- Primary completion
- Dec 2009 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2009 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Jan 2009 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to assess whether shoes that are more controlling for movement of the foot and ankle, compared to shoes that are less controlling, will reduce the overall number and severity of injuries experienced during a 13-week running programme. Our hypothesis is that runners who wear more controlling footwear during the 13-week programme will experience less injury events.
Detailed description
The proposed study will be a non-blinded prospective randomized cohort design.
Subjects will include adult runners of both genders with no history of injury in the 6 months prior to study enrollment. Eligible participants will have no history of surgery or trauma to the lower extremity that might compromise their walking or running gait, and all subjects must be able to comfortably fit into their selected footwear.
Three different foot posture sub-group classifications will be recruited: neutral, mild to moderate, and excessive. The subjects' foot posture will be classified using the Foot Posture Index (Redmond et al. (2006)(1). Twenty four subjects are estimated to be required within each foot posture sub-group; therefore 72 subjects will be our goal for enrollment. Subjects within each foot posture sub-group will be randomized into one of two separate footwear conditions: both the neutral group and the mild to moderate pronator group will be divided to receive either a neutral cushioned running shoe (a.k.a. 'neutral shoe'), or a shoe with mild stability components for controlling overpronation (a.k.a. 'stability shoe'); participants in the excessive pronator sub-group will be randomized to receive either a 'stability shoe' or a shoe will aggressive motion controlling features (a.k.a. 'motion control shoe').
All subjects will undergo an initial baseline test, including an entrance interview for participant eligibility, training history, running injury history and documentation of lower extremity anthropometry (i.e. arch height, knee alignment, standing rearfoot position). Subjects will be randomized during their baseline test to their shoe condition and receive their shoes, training diary and running programme at that time.
Once all subjects have completed their baseline testing, the official running clinic start date will commence on the following Saturday. A running clinic is established so that all subjects will have a chance to meet together, along with knowledgeable run leaders and a study co-investigator (MR), in order to increase group cohesion and provide an opportunity for data monitoring, programme feedback and subject questions. All subjects will begin the running programme at the official running clinic start date. The programme is designed to prepare individuals for a half-marathon (21 kilometre) running event in 13 weeks. Subjects will run on their own time, as indicating in their running programme, for the rest of the week until meeting again the following Saturday. This schedule will be repeated for the entire 13 week duration of the programme.
Outcome variables of interest in this study include: 1) number of injury events, defined as a missed run workout that is associated with running related pain; 2) McGill Pain Questionnaire score(2) ; and 3) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) items for pain at rest, activities of daily living, during or immediately after running, respectively(3) . Outcome variables will be assessed at baseline, at the 6 week point in the running programme, and at the conclusion to the running programme.
All data will be entered into a spreadsheet and statistical analysis software package JMP Version 4.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). In calculating statistical power for subject recruitment, a 20% difference in the VAS pain scores across groups will be considered to be a clinically meaningful difference. Accordingly, assuming a standard deviation of 2.3 in the VAS scores, an alpha of 5% and a beta error-level of 10%, twenty four subjects will be required within each foot posture sub-group; therefore 69 subjects will be our goal for enrollment. Each foot posture sub-group will undergo its own analysis procedure. Levene's test of equality of variance will precede a factorial analysis of variance in determining whether there are significant main effects for time and footwear condition, as well as an interaction effect, for all three dependent (or outcome) variables. Alpha will be set at 0.05 for this study.
- Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: The Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech 2006;21:89-98.
- Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975; 1: 277-299.
- Wewers M.E. \& Lowe N.K. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing and Health 1990;13: 227-236.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Device: Motion Controlling Running ShoeFootwear with motion controlling elements built into construction in order to reduce pronation of the foot and ankle during running. |
| 2 | Active comparator | Device: Neutral Running ShoeFootwear with standard neutral stabilization elements for the foot and ankle during running. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 50 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Adult, runner.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Not currently injured,
- No history of surgery to the lower extremity.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Motion Controlling Running ShoeRunning shoe with thermoplastic mid-foot shank stiffener, denser durometer foam on medial aspect of mid-sole, reinforced heel counter, wider sole-plate, and lateral foam crash-pad. | Device | 1 |
| Neutral Running ShoeStandard running shoe with single density mid-sole foam. | Device | 2 |
Primary outcome
Injury status, as measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and at the end of the 13-week programme
Time frame: 13 weeks
1 secondary outcome
Pain levels, as measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and at the end of the 13-week programme
Time frame: 13 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Feb 2014.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Jack Taunton, MD principal investigator
University of British Columbia
Michael Ryan study director
University of British Columbia
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Neutral Running Shoe in people with Pronation Control, run by University of British Columbia at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Feb 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Injury status, as measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and at the end of the 13-week programme (time frame: 13 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Feb 2014.