Background: Treadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings. Objective: This study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running. Methods: Four databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18–65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results: 33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot–ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) − 9.8° [95% confidence interval: − 13.1 to − 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD − 1.5 cm [− 2.7 to − 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD − 0.04 body weights [− 0.06 to − 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD − 2.3° [− 3.6 to − 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD − 0.4 Nm/kg [− 0.7 to − 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity. Conclusions: Spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle–tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

To date, the use of autograft tissue remains the "gold standard" technique for repairing transected peripheral nerves. However, the recovery is suboptimal, and neuroactive molecules are required. In the current study, we focused our attention on vitamin D, an FDA-approved molecule whose neuroprotective and neurotrophic actions are increasingly recognized. We assessed the therapeutic potential of ergocalciferol--the plant-derived form of vitamin D, named vitamin D2--in a rat model of peripheral nerve injury and repair. The left peroneal nerve was cut out on a length of 10 mm and immediately autografted in an inverted position. After surgery, animals were treated with ergocalciferol (100 IU/kg/day) and compared to untreated animals. Functional recovery of hindlimb was measured weekly, during 10 weeks post-surgery, using a walking track apparatus and a numerical camcorder. At the end of this period, motor and sensitive responses of the regenerated axons were calculated and histological analysis was performed. We observed that vitamin D2 significantly (i) increased axogenesis and axon diameter; (ii) improved the responses of sensory neurons to metabolites such as KCl and lactic acid; and (iii) induced a fast-to-slow fiber type transition of the Tibialis anterior muscle. In addition, functional recovery was not impaired by vitamin D supplementation. Altogether, these data indicate that vitamin D potentiates axon regeneration. Pharmacological studies with various concentrations of the two forms of vitamin D (ergocalciferol vs. cholecalciferol) are now required before recommending this molecule as a potential supplemental therapeutic approach following nerve injury.