Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27459418›Full record

ArticleGait & posture2016

Comparability of off the shelf foot orthoses in the redistribution of forces in midfoot osteoarthritis patients.

Graham J Chapman, Jill Halstead, Anthony C Redmond

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Gait & posture, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Graham J ChapmanInstitute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; Arthritis Research UK, Experimental Osteoarthritis Treatment Centre, UK. Electronic address: g.j.chapman@leeds.ac.uk.
Jill HalsteadInstitute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Arthritis Research UK, Experimental Osteoarthritis Treatment Centre, UK.
Anthony C RedmondInstitute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; Arthritis Research UK, Experimental Osteoarthritis Treatment Centre, UK; Arthritis Research UK, Sports, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Centre, UK.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 19996Arthritis Research UK 20083Department of Health PDA/03/07/047Versus Arthritis 19996
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMidfoot osteoarthritis (OA) is more prevalent and strongly associated with pain than previously thought. Excessive mechanical loading of the midfoot structures may contribute to midfoot OA and studies suggest that functional foot orthoses (FFO) may relieve pain through improving function. This exploratory study aimed to evaluate the mechanical effect of two off-the-shelf FFOs, compared to a sham orthosis in people with midfoot OA.

methodsThirty-three participants with radiographically confirmed symptomatic midfoot OA were randomly assigned to wear either a commercially available FFO or a sham orthosis. After wearing their assigned orthoses for 12 weeks, plantar pressure measurements were obtained under shoe-only and assigned orthoses conditions. Participants assigned to the sham, were additionally tested wearing a second type of FFO at the end of trial. Descriptive mean change (±95% confidence intervals) in plantar pressure for each orthoses condition, versus a shoe only baseline condition are presented.

findingsCompared to the shoe only conditions, both FFOs decreased hindfoot and forefoot maximum force and peak pressure, whilst increasing maximum force and contact area under the midfoot. The sham orthosis yielded plantar pressures similar to the shoe-only condition.

interpretationFindings suggest that both types of off-the-shelf FFO may provide mechanical benefit, whilst the sham orthoses produced similar findings to the shoe only condition, indicating appropriate sham properties. This paper provides insight into the mechanisms of action underpinning the use of FFOs and sham orthoses, which can inform future definitive RCTs examining the effect of orthoses on midfoot OA.

Indexed as

Foot JointsFoot OrthosesShoesBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleFootHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritisPressureFootMidfootOrthosesOsteoarthritisPlantar pressureSham device

Identifiers

PMID27459418
PMCPMC5038933
OpenAlexW2471946928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.