Agreement between 2D Visual- and 3D Motion Capture-based Assessment of Foot Strike Pattern.
Haruhiko Goto, Toshinao Kamikubo, Ryota Yamamoto and 2 others
PMID 39502547WHAT IT FOUND
High-speed video agreed with laboratory methods when classifying runners as rearfoot or non-rearfoot.
It did not agree well when splitting non-rearfoot into forefoot or midfoot. Use the two-category system.
Key findings
01Visual high-speed video classification agreed almost perfectly with laboratory strike index and strike angle methods when foot strike was grouped as non-rearfoot or rearfoot.
02When forefoot, midfoot and rearfoot were classified separately, agreement between visual video and laboratory methods was moderate or substantial.
03When forefoot and midfoot were compared directly, agreement between visual video and laboratory methods was fair or slight.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 4 healthy recreational male runners were studied, so the agreement results may not apply to women, injured runners or other populations. The study compared classification methods, not injuries or patient outcomes, so it does not show that a foot strike pattern causes injury or that changing foot strike reduces injury. Foot strike was assessed on a 20 m runway during instructed trials as well as habitual running, which may not reflect all clinical or field settings. Only the right foot was analyzed, and only standard running shoes were used. The authors noted that running speed might influence assessment if sampling frequency were inadequate, although they used a 240 fps camera.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that high-speed video can reliably distinguish forefoot from midfoot strike. The agreement for that distinction was fair or slight, so use the non-rearfoot versus rearfoot grouping.