Retailers of running shoes talk about "pronation" and the risks it causes and how shoe choice can help.
For examples, Asics claim:
Pronation refers to the way your foot rolls inward for impact distribution upon landing. [...] People who roll inward too much or not enough can experience running injuries due to less effective shock absorption - which is around 60% of runners.
However, some people argued the evidence for the claim that pronation is (consistently) predictive of injury is poor. Sports Podiatrist Ian Griffith, blogged about this in 2011, and this forms the basis of the Subreddit r/running's wiki's article on the matter.
The blog proposes that this is not founded in science, but has been proposed in a very old (1940's) paper and simply repeated since then.
On the contrary, it seems that there are papers which show that the assumptions or arguments are plain wrong (many references in the blog entry).
Well, it has generally been thought that a more pronated foot type is a significant risk factor for injury. However the fact is that there are very few prospective studies which have actually shown this, with numerous studies actually concluding that there is no association between foot type and injury. Two studies have even shown that a pronated foot is actually a protective factor against injury.
Ten years later, what does the evidence show? Do runners who pronate tend to get more injuries? Do "stabilizing" running shoes lead to fewer injuries?
N.B. My question is about the choice of running shoes, not whether barefoot running is better than with shoes.