I'm sorry, but to try to draw any conclusions from analyzing results of this survey is, at best, iffy.

First, conflating barefoot and minimalist is problematic. Not ONE barefoot runner believes that the two are synonymous and only shoe companies have tried to convince people otherwise. Conflating the two eliminates the ability to find data about one or the other, which would be more useful (e.g. what if true barefooters had no problems, but minimalist runners did?).

Secondly, there's no definition of "minimalist." The Nike Free is usually thought of as minimalist, yet it has a highly raised heel and significant stack height and no barefoot runner would consider it such.

Next, self-reporting of injuries over the course of years (pre-BF/MF, transition phase, BF/MF) is, of course, likely to be inaccurate, as is almost any self-reported historical data.

Considering ALL injuries together without any constraint taints the data (does "soreness" count as an injury? or only something that keeps you from running for, say, a week, or 2 weeks?).

Having no definition of the "transition phase" is also problematic. And not asking how long the transition took (according to the self-report) makes this very concept questionable.

Last, there's a joke "The plural of anecdotes is not data." Similarly, self-reporting of the type from this survey does not constitute "evidence" (as suggested in the title).

Though I love that the survey revealed post-transition injuries are seemingly way less frequent when BF/MF than shod, I'd view any analysis of this data with care, given the quality of the questionnaire.