RightRep EN · PT Open the app
BLOG

Can You Train With Runner's Knee? The Patellofemoral Audit: Where Taunton's Clinic Census of 2,002 Running Injuries Ranks Patellofemoral Pain First — Ahead of ITBS, Plantar Fasciitis and Meniscal Injuries — Where Smith's Meta Puts Annual Prevalence at 22.7% of Everybody and 28.9% of Adolescents with Amateur Runners at 1,080.5 per 1,000 Person-Years, Where Rathleff's Two-Year Adolescent Follow-Up Finds 55.9% Still in Pain (RR 1.26) and Concludes Not Self-Limiting, Where Neal's Risk Meta Retires Age, BMI, Q-Angle and Hip Weakness as Predictors While Keeping Quadriceps Weakness (SMD −0.69), Where the Cochrane's 31 Trials Answer MD −1.46 Pain / +12 AKPS Points / +88 per 1,000 Recovered and Nascimento's 14-Trial Meta Shows Hip-Plus-Knee Beating Knee-Only at MD −1.5 Pain, Where Winters' Network Meta Runs Education+Exercise+Taping at OR 25.2 Against Wait-and-See Yet Finds Education Alone Comparable at Twelve Months, Where Esculier's RCT Shows Education Matching Both Add-Ons and de Souza Júnior's Brazilian Retraining Trial Cuts Running Pain by −3.2 at Six Months: the Kneecap Hurts Under Load, and the Answer Is Education Plus Programmed Loading — Not Rest, Not Surgery, Not the Brace Drawer

By RightRep AI Assistant · · 21 min read

There is a fence at the top of this post and it outranks everything below it: a knee that swelled, locks, or genuinely gives way after a specific twisting or impact moment is not this file — that is the meniscus and ACL door, and it wants imaging before programming. The second fence: a kneecap that has dislocated or visibly slips sideways is the patellar-instability door — a clinician file with its own decisions, not a loading question. The third: pain unrelated to load — constant, night pain, with fever or unexplained weight loss — is the rare-file door (infection, tumor, and worse), and it is a clinician-now file. The fourth: an adolescent whose pain sits at the tendon-bone bump below or above the kneecap is the growth-plate file (Osgood-Schlatter, Sinding-Larsen-Johansson), not the patellofemoral file. The fifth: a knee in its forties or beyond whose morning stiffness runs past thirty minutes belongs to the arthritis audit, which is a different disease with a different (also exercise-first) file. And the last: front-of-knee pain unchanged after three or more months of honest, programmed conservative care has earned a clinician reassessment — the stubborn cases deserve examination, not more program-hopping. One honesty clause before the fun part: this library has already opened most of the orthopedic family — the ACL, the meniscus, the patellar tendon, the hamstring, the shin, the Achilles tendon, the foot's fascia, the ankle ligaments, the frozen shoulder — and it has audited whether running ruins knees and whether squats damage them — but the single most common knee pain in sports medicine sat unaudited as a training-through question. In either language. This is that file.

The short answer: train — education first, loading programmed, and the kneecap's own exercises are the treatment, not the thing you wait out

Strip the file to its spine. Patellofemoral pain is an irritability problem, not a structural alarm — retro- or peripatellar pain that load provokes (stairs, squatting, running, prolonged sitting) and rest quiets, diagnosed clinically [3]. The treatment spine is unusually consistent across three layers of evidence: exercise therapy beats control on pain during activity (MD −1.46, 95% CI −2.39 to −0.54) and function (SMD 1.10, re-expressed as 12.21 points on the Anterior Knee Pain Scale), with 88 more per 1,000 recovered at twelve months [8]; combining hip-focused with knee-focused exercise beats knee-focused alone on pain (MD −1.5) and activity (SMD 0.7), with results holding beyond the intervention period [9]; and in the network meta-analysis, every active treatment beat wait-and-see at three months — education alone at OR 9.6, climbing to OR 25.2 for education+exercise+taping/mobilisations and OR 38.8 with orthoses added [11]. The twist that makes this file honest: at twelve months, education alone was comparable to any combination [11], and in Esculier's randomized trial of 69 runners, education on symptoms and training-load management matched both education-plus-exercise and education-plus-gait-retraining on pain and function at every checkpoint to twenty weeks [15]. So the training answer is: yes — keep training, keep the kneecap loaded within its tolerable band, add the hip-plus-knee program underneath, treat education as the primary component rather than the pamphlet [15], and read the prognosis door carefully, because this is the injury the field stopped calling self-limiting [4].

Who is asking: the census file

This is the busiest overuse complaint in sports medicine, and the numbers say so twice. In the clinic census that still anchors the field — 2,002 running injuries seen at a primary-care sports medicine center — patellofemoral pain syndrome was the most common injury, ahead of iliotibial band friction syndrome, plantar fasciitis, meniscal injuries and tibial stress syndrome, and being under 34 was a risk factor across both sexes [1]. The prevalence meta-analysis puts the population scale on one page: annual prevalence of patellofemoral pain was 22.7% in the general population and 28.9% in adolescents — and for perspective on who is carrying this file, amateur runners in the general population ran an incidence of 1,080.5 per 1,000 person-years, with military recruits between 9.7 and 571.4 depending on the cohort, adolescent amateur athletes at 5.1–14.9% over a single season, and the pooled point prevalence in female adolescent athletes at 22.7% (95% CI 17.4–28.0) [2]. That runner number deserves a beat: in a busy amateur-running year, patellofemoral pain is closer to a toll road than a rare event [2]. And the same meta-analysis, after seeing these numbers, prints the field's quiet confession — that patellofemoral pain carries poor long-term prognosis and high disability levels and deserves urgent research priority [2]. The gym population reads like this census's customer list: the lifter whose deep squats started whispering, the runner whose downhill miles bite, the desk worker whose movie-theater knee announces itself on the stairs. This library audited what running does to knees, whether running is bad for them and whether squats damage them — but the pain that actually lives under the kneecap never got its training-through audit. Until now.

The naming door: what this pain is, and why the X-ray stays in its drawer

The international consensus file (fourth retreat, Manchester) gives this condition its name and its examination: "patellofemoral pain" is the term, the diagnosis is clinical — pain behind or around the kneecap provoked by loaded knee flexion — and the statement's scope runs terminology, clinical examination and natural history out to the patellofemoral-osteoarthritis connection [3]. What the consensus framing changes for the trainee is subtle but real: patellofemoral pain is a symptom presentation, not a structural verdict — there is no "the scan shows runner's knee" moment to wait for, because routine imaging is not how this diagnosis is made [3]. The 2018 Gold Coast consensus (41 experts voting on the accumulated trials) then draws the treatment map this post walks: exercise therapy — especially combining hip-focused and knee-focused work — plus combined interventions and foot orthoses are supported to improve pain and function; isolated mobilizations and electrophysical agents are not recommended; patellar taping, bracing, dry needling, blood-flow-restriction training and gait retraining carry honest uncertainty labels [12]. Hold the shape of that list: it is a short list of things that work, a short list of things that do not, and a middle shelf of maybe — and every door below is sorted into exactly those shelves.

The prognosis door: the file the field stopped calling self-limiting

The finding that should reorganize how a trainee treats this knee is the follow-up data. The classic teaching was that patellofemoral pain is the knee's version of a cold — annoying, but it leaves. Rathleff's adolescent cohort buried that: of 2,200 adolescents surveyed, 504 reported knee pain and 153 were clinically diagnosed with patellofemoral pain — and two years later, 55.9% (95% CI 50.8–60.9) still reported knee pain, with the patellofemoral group carrying 1.26 times the risk (95% CI 1.05–1.50) of the other-knee-pain groups and being significantly more likely to have reduced or stopped sports participation [4]. Adolescents without baseline knee pain developed it at 12.8% over the same window — carrying baseline knee pain raised the two-year risk 4.51-fold (95% CI 3.15–6.45) [4]. The printed conclusion is the one to sit with: knee pain during adolescence, and patellofemoral pain in particular, "may not be self-limiting" [4]. The rethinking review draws the adult consequence: prospective studies demonstrate the propensity toward chronicity, quadriceps weakness is one of the few prospectively supported risk factors, and management needs to extend beyond exercise sheets into education, movement retraining and psychosocial factors [5]. Why this matters for the training question is arithmetic: if waiting quietly on the couch were the cure, the two-year numbers would not look like that [4]. The knee that hurts under load is programmed out of its pain by graded loading and load wisdom — deloads included — not by inactivity, which is the one prescription this prognosis file empirically mocks [4][5].

The risk door: what the meta actually says (and the myth file it retires)

Ask the internet what causes runner's knee and you will get a body-shape taxonomy: wide hips, high Q-angle, weak glutes, flat feet. The prospective meta-analysis — 18 studies, 4,818 participants, 483 of whom developed patellofemoral pain — disagrees with the poster: age, height, weight, BMI, body fat and Q-angle were all NOT risk factors for future patellofemoral pain, with strong-to-moderate evidence [6]. Hip weakness failed the prediction test too: moderate evidence indicates hip weakness is not a risk factor (pooled SMDs −0.09 to −0.20) — with the strange adolescent inversion where higher hip-abduction strength carried risk (SMD 0.71) [6]. The one modifiable flag that survived: quadriceps weakness predicted patellofemoral pain in military recruits, especially normalized to body mass (SMD −0.69, 95% CI −1.02 to −0.35) [6]. The prospective cohort study supplies the cleanest null of the file: 77 healthy female novice runners had every hip muscle group strength-tested before a 10-week start-to-run program — and not one hip-strength measure differed between the women who developed patellofemoral pain and those who did not [7]. Read those two papers correctly, because they are the file's honesty engine: "weak glutes cause runner's knee" is a treatment story, not a prediction story — hip-focused exercise helps treat the pain [9][10], but hip strength did not predict who develops it [6][7]. What the risk file actually licenses is blunt: strong quadriceps as the modifiable lead [5][6], a skeptical eye on anatomy-based causation stories [6], and — since prevention trials of lower-limb strengthening have generally not succeeded — no promise that any program immunizes you [5].

The exercise spine: the Cochrane verdict and the hip-plus-knee layer

The treatment spine of this file is exercise therapy, and the Cochrane review of it is the widest lens: 31 trials, 1,690 participants [8]. Against control, pooled exercise therapy cut pain during activity short-term by MD −1.46 on a 0–10 scale (95% CI −2.39 to −0.54) — an interval that includes the clinically important 1.3 — and improved short-term function by SMD 1.10, re-expressed as 12.21 more points on the 0–100 Anterior Knee Pain Scale (6.44–18.09), again brushing the clinically important 10 [8]. On recovery: against 250 per 1,000 recovering in control, 88 more per 1,000 (95% CI 2 fewer to 210 more) recovered at twelve months with exercise [8]. The honesty tag travels with the numbers, and the Cochrane authors print it themselves: the evidence was very low quality — small trials, blinding problems, heterogeneous programs — but consistent across every outcome and time window [8]. Then the layering question the gym actually asks — quads, hips, or both? The Brazilian-led meta-analysis answers with the file's cleanest dose-response: across 14 trials and 673 participants, hip-plus-knee strengthening beat knee strengthening alone on pain (MD −1.5, 95% CI −2.3 to −0.8) and activity (SMD 0.7, 0.2–1.3), with results maintained beyond the intervention period [9] — replicating the Cochrane's own hip-plus-knee signal (MD −2.20, −3.80 to −0.60) [8]. The proximal-rehabilitation review adds the durability note: proximal-plus-quadriceps work carried strong short-term evidence and the long-term signal at one year [10]. And the strangest honesty note in the file: the winning combinations achieved their pain and activity outcomes without a measurable change in strength [9] — the therapeutic act may be as much the graded, supervised loading itself as the tissue adaptation. For programming, that is not a paradox; it is the whole progressive overload argument wearing a knee sleeve.

The comparative-effectiveness door: everything beats nothing, education carries the year

The network meta-analysis is the file's tournament bracket — 22 trials, 48 treatment arms, every active option against wait-and-see at three months: education alone OR 9.6 (95% CrI 2.2–48.8); exercise OR 13.0 (2.4–83.5); education+orthosis OR 16.5 (4.9–65.8); education+exercise+patellar taping/mobilisations OR 25.2 (5.7–130.3); adding orthoses to that stack OR 38.8 (7.3–236.9) [11]. Against education alone, the combined stacks still won at three months (OR 2.6–4.0) [11]. Then the twelve-month line flattens the bracket: education or education-plus-anything yielded similar improvement rates [11] — with the reviewers' caveat printed plainly that most comparisons ran low-to-very-low certainty and nearly half the trials carried high risk of bias [11]. Esculier's randomized trial of 69 runners is the bracket's conscience: three eight-week programs — education on symptom management and training modification, education+exercise, education+gait-retraining — produced no differences in pain or function at four, eight, or twenty weeks; all three arms improved significantly [15]. The add-ons did move their own targets (only the exercise arm gained knee-extension strength; only the retraining arm raised step rate 7.0% and cut vertical loading rate 25.4%) [15] — mechanisms moved, symptoms matched [15]. The synthesis for a trainee: treat education — what provokes this knee, how to dose load down and back up — as the primary component, with exercise and retraining as the multipliers that act faster, not as substitutes for knowing what you're managing [11][15].

The adjunct doors: orthoses' short-term win, taping's shrug, and what the consensus retired

The orthoses door has a real randomized answer: the factorial trial — 179 participants, six-week interventions — found foot orthoses produced improvement beyond flat inserts in the short term: relative risk reduction 0.66 (99% CI 0.05–1.17), NNT 4 (99% CI 2–51) at six weeks [14]. The same trial's honest halves: orthoses were statistically similar to multimodal physiotherapy, added nothing to physiotherapy, and all four arms improved clinically over 52 weeks [14] — the insole is a short-term accelerant for some knees, not a cure, and its effect size did not survive the year any better than the cheaper arms [14]. The taping/bracing question the Gold Coast consensus answers with a shrug: uncertain evidence [12]. What the consensus retired outright: isolated patellofemoral, knee or lumbar mobilizations, and electrophysical agents — not recommended [12]. And the best-practice guide's four principles are the file's operating system: patellofemoral pain is multifactorial and needs an individually tailored multimodal plan; immediate pain relief is a priority to earn trust; active beats passive interventions; and education with activity modification is essential [13] — which is why the programming door below is bigger than the equipment drawer. If you want a knee sleeve for comfort, the gear file covers what sleeves do and don't — just do not confuse it with the treatment stack [12][14].

The runner's door: gait retraining's honest file

For the runner whose pain tracks with mileage, the retraining literature now has two randomized anchors. Esculier's trial (above): retraining matched education-alone on symptoms while specifically raising step rate 7.0% and dropping vertical loading rate 25.4% [15]. The Brazilian randomized trial sharpened the comparison: 30 runners, two-week partially-supervised programs — an impact-focused cue (cut tibial acceleration by half) versus a cadence-focused cue (step rate up 7.5–10%) versus control — and at six months both retraining arms beat control on running pain (impact MD −3.2, 95% CI −5.1 to −1.3; cadence MD −2.9, −4.8 to −1.0), with the impact arm also winning knee function immediately after the program (MD 10.8, 1.0–20.6) [16]. Neither cue changed the measured kinematics — the mechanism story stays open — but the pain numbers held at six months against doing nothing [16]. The programming translation is modest and usable: shorter, quicker steps and softer landings are legitimate tools when education-plus-exercise plateaus, they cost nothing, and they belong on the warm-up-adjacent shelf of technique work rather than the treatment shelf [15][16]. They are not the first prescription — education and the hip-plus-knee program are [8][9][11][15] — but for the knee that keeps flaring at mile four, the cadence dial is the best-studied free variable in running [15][16].

The programming door: what trains, what modifies, what stops

The training-through file, organized the way the injury family does it — by what the week actually contains:

  • Everything above the knee never stopped. Bench, rows, presses, pull-ups, arms, trunk: day one, unmodified. Continued training is the identity file every conservative program quietly relies on [13].
  • The other leg keeps training and does double duty. Single-leg work on the healthy side carries the training frequency; the irritable side trains inside its tolerable band, not at the healthy side's numbers yet.
  • The irritability gauge is concrete: stairs down, deep flexion under load, and the sitting movie-theater test. Pain that arrives during a set and settles within a day without a hotter tomorrow is a green light at that dose; a knee that's angrier two mornings running is the amber that says volume or depth comes down this week — the same traffic-light logic as training when sore, except this pain is irritability pain, so the traffic lights actually steer the program [13].
  • Squat-pattern work is usually a depth-and-dose question, not a prohibition. The squat-knees myth audit already established squats don't harm healthy knees; the irritable patellofemoral knee reads the same lift through the dose dial — box depth, machine variants and split squats with a shorter stride frequently keep the pattern loaded while the flare settles, progressing back by the gauge above [8][9][13].
  • The hip-plus-knee program is not optional decoration. Hip abductor/extensor/external-rotator work plus quadriceps work — the exact combination the trials layered [8][9][10] — slots in beside the lifting week as its own block, progressively overloaded like anything else, with the honest note that even strength-neutral blocks have won the pain outcomes [9].
  • Cardio keeps the engine with less patellofemoral dose. Zone-2 cycling with the seat high-ish, swimming, and flatter running come before downhill trails and stadium stairs; running mileage is the most commonly provoking variable and the first to be periodized down and back up [2][13][15].
  • What stops: the fences. Effusion, locking, giving way, a kneecap that slips, night pain unexplained by load, adolescent tendon-bump pain, the 40-plus morning-stiffness pattern, or three-plus honest months without meaningful change — clinician doors, and nothing in this paragraph outranks them.

The training-log door: what RightRep sees

This file has a metric structure the camera-and-log app can actually hold:

  • The load history is the diagnosis's best friend. Weekly volume, intensity and exercise selection around each flare — the exact data a clinician asks you to reconstruct from memory, already dated and rep-counted in the log [13][15].
  • The irritability diary as a query, not a feeling. Which sessions ran hotter, which mornings followed angrier — the traffic-light gauge above becomes searchable history, and the plateau-or-trend question at the three-month mark answers itself from data [4][13].
  • The hip-plus-knee block on the record. The program that wins the trials [8][9] logged like any other block — sets, reps, load — with left-right tracking for the single-leg variants and workout tracking doing the adherence audit the trials depended on.
  • The comeback as a normal block. Depth reclaimed, stairs down quieted, mileage rebuilt — a progression the session history already knows how to hold; the kneecap that heals by graded load heals on the record [8][9].

The bottom line

  • The census: patellofemoral pain ranked first of 2,002 running injuries — ahead of ITBS, plantar fasciitis and meniscal injuries; annual prevalence 22.7% general, 28.9% adolescent; amateur runners 1,080.5 per 1,000 person-years; female adolescent athletes 22.7% point prevalence [1][2].
  • The prognosis door: 55.9% still in pain at two years, RR 1.26 versus other knee pain, more sport reduction and cessation — "may not be self-limiting" [4][5].
  • The risk door: age, BMI, Q-angle, body fat and hip weakness are NOT prospective risk factors; quadriceps weakness is (SMD −0.69); hip strength failed the prediction test in both the meta and the prospective cohort [6][7].
  • The exercise spine: Cochrane 31 trials — pain MD −1.46, function +12 AKPS points, +88 per 1,000 recovered at a year; hip-plus-knee beats knee-only on pain (MD −1.5, then −2.20 in the Cochrane pool), maintained beyond the intervention [8][9][10].
  • The tournament: everything beats wait-and-see at three months (education OR 9.6 up to the full stack OR 38.8); at twelve months education alone is comparable to any combination [11].
  • The education-first RCT: 69 runners, education matched both add-ons on symptoms to twenty weeks — education is the primary component [15].
  • The adjunct doors: orthoses beat flat inserts short-term (NNT 4) but add nothing to physiotherapy; taping uncertain; isolated mobilizations and electrophysical agents retired by consensus [12][14].
  • The runner's door: cadence/impact cues cut running pain −2.9 to −3.2 at six months versus nothing; mechanisms moved more than kinematics did [15][16].
  • The honesty notes: the Cochrane's evidence is very-low-quality but consistent; winning programs improved pain without measurable strength gains; prevention trials have generally failed [5][8][9].

Train the body above the knee the same day, dose the kneecap by its traffic lights, put the hip-plus-knee program underneath the week, treat education as the primary component — and let the camera keep the reps honest at rightrep.app.

This post was written by the RightRep AI Assistant — the same AI that counts and scores your reps at rightrep.app.

Sources

  1. Taunton JE, Ryan MB, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, Lloyd-Smith DR, Zumbo BD. A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2002;36(2):95–101. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  2. Smith BE, Selfe J, Thacker D, Hendrick P, Bateman M, Moffatt F, Rathleff MS, Smith TO, Logan P. Incidence and prevalence of patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 2018;13(1):e0190892. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  3. Crossley KM, Stefanik JJ, Selfe J, Collins NJ, Davis IS, Powers CM, McConnell J, Vicenzino B, Bazett-Jones DM, Esculier JF, Morrissey D, Callaghan MJ. 2016 Patellofemoral pain consensus statement from the 4th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat, Manchester. Part 1: Terminology, definitions, clinical examination, natural history, patellofemoral osteoarthritis and patient-reported outcome measures. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2016;50(14):839–843. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  4. Rathleff MS, Rathleff CR, Olesen JL, Rasmussen S, Roos EM. Is knee pain during adolescence a self-limiting condition? Prognosis of patellofemoral pain and other types of knee pain. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2016;44(5):1165–1171. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  5. Crossley KM, van Middelkoop M, Barton CJ, Culvenor AG. Rethinking patellofemoral pain: Prevention, management and long-term consequences. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 2019;33(1):48–65. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  6. Neal BS, Lack SD, Lankhorst NE, Raye A, Morrissey D, van Middelkoop M. Risk factors for patellofemoral pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2019;53(5):270–281. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  7. Thijs Y, Pattyn E, Van Tiggelen D, Rombaut L, Witvrouw E. Is hip muscle weakness a predisposing factor for patellofemoral pain in female novice runners? A prospective study. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2011;39(9):1877–1882. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  8. van der Heijden RA, Lankhorst NE, van Linschoten R, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, van Middelkoop M. Exercise for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015;(1):CD010387. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  9. Nascimento LR, Teixeira-Salmela LF, Souza RB, Resende RA. Hip and knee strengthening is more effective than knee strengthening alone for reducing pain and improving activity in individuals with patellofemoral pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 2018;48(1):19–31. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  10. Lack S, Barton C, Sohan O, Crossley K, Morrissey D. Proximal muscle rehabilitation is effective for patellofemoral pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015;49(21):1365–1376. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  11. Winters M, Holden S, Lura CB, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Vicenzino BT, Weir A, Rathleff MS. Comparative effectiveness of treatments for patellofemoral pain: a living systematic review with network meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2020;55(7):369–377. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  12. Collins NJ, Barton CJ, van Middelkoop M, Callaghan MJ, Rathleff MS, Vicenzino BT, Davis IS, Powers CM, Macri EM, Hart HF, de Oliveira Silva D, Crossley KM. 2018 Consensus statement on exercise therapy and physical interventions (orthoses, taping and manual therapy) to treat patellofemoral pain: recommendations from the 5th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat, Gold Coast, Australia, 2017. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2018;52(18):1170–1178. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  13. Barton CJ, Lack S, Hemmings S, Tufail S, Morrissey D. The 'Best Practice Guide to Conservative Management of Patellofemoral Pain': incorporating level 1 evidence with expert clinical reasoning. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015;49(14):923–934. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  14. Collins N, Crossley K, Beller E, Darnell R, McPoil T, Vicenzino B. Foot orthoses and physiotherapy in the treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome: randomised clinical trial. BMJ, 2008;337:a1735. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  15. Esculier JF, Bouyer LJ, Dubois B, Fremont P, Moore L, McFadyen B, Roy JS. Is combining gait retraining or an exercise programme with education better than education alone in treating runners with patellofemoral pain? A randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2018;52(10):659–666. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  16. de Souza Júnior JR, Rabelo PHR, Lemos TV, Esculier JF, Barbosa GMP, Matheus JPC. Effects of two gait retraining programs on pain, function, and lower limb kinematics in runners with patellofemoral pain: A randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE, 2024;19(1):e0295645. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov