Short-Term Effects of Wearing Commercially and Non-commercially Available Motion Control Footwear Versus Standard
Ali Esmaeili1, AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero1, Seyed Hamed Mousavi2
1Department of Sport Biomechanics, Faculty of Educational Science and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.
Background:
There is controversy in the literature with regards to the short-term effects of wearing footwear with motion control features on running mechanics and whether commercially available footwear with motion control features has extra benefits compared with non-commercially available motion control footwear. In this systematic review with meta-analysis, we investigated the effects of wearing commercially available and non-commercially available footwear with motion control features versus standard shoes applied during one experimental session on lower limb joint angles and moments during running in adults.
Methods:
Five electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were systematically searched for articles potentially eligible for inclusion from inception until September 2025. Footwear with motion control features were classified into commercially available motion control footwear without additional modifications (shoes with dual midsole material) versus non-commercially available footwear incorporating self-manufactured motion control features (shoes with heel flare or wedge). The main difference between these shoe types is how they control foot pronation. The control condition comprised standard (neutral) shoes. The outcome parameters were lower limb kinematics (e.g., peak rearfoot eversion) and kinetics (e.g., peak ankle inversion moment) during running. The modified version of the Downs and Black checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Within and between-group standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using a random-effects model to elucidate the effects of (i) wearing footwear with motion control features (both commercially available motion control shoes and non commercially available footwear with motion control features) compared to standard shoes (total effects) and (ii) commercially available motion control footwear without additional modifications versus non-commercially available footwear incorporating self-manufactured motion control features (subgroup analysis).
Results:
The systematic search revealed 11,623 hits and finally 18 studies were eligible for inclusion of which 14 were used for quantitative analyses. We observed significant total effects of wearing footwear with motion control features versus standard shoes during running on the peak rearfoot eversion angle (six studies; SMDs = - 0.87, 95% CI - 1.38 to - 0.35, p = 0.001, I2 = 66%) and the peak knee internal rotation angle (four studies; small SMDs = - 0.30, 95% CI - 2.58 to - 0.0, p = 0.05, I2 = 0%). The subgroup analyses revealed significantly lower peak rearfoot eversion in commercially available motion control footwear versus non-commercially available footwear incorporating self-manufactured motion control features (five studies SMDs = - 0.69, 95% CI - 1.19, - 0.18, p = 0.008, I2 = 50%). The included studies were rated as moderate methodological quality.
Conclusions:
This study revealed that wearing footwear with motion control features versus standard shoes has the potential to control rearfoot eversion and proximal segment motion in adults. The findings showed that wearing commercially available footwear with motion control features has extra benefits compared with non-commercially available motion control footwear. The observed findings for peak rearfoot eversion angle were statistically significant and clinically relevant. Nevertheless, more high-quality research is needed to elucidate the effects of footwear with motion control features application on running kinematics and kinetics as well as lower limb muscular activation.
