Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28009675›Full record

ArticleJBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports2016

Effects of foot and ankle devices on balance, gait and falls in adults with sensory perception loss: a systematic review.

Joanne Paton, Anna L Hatton, Keith Rome, Bridie Kent

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Joanne Paton1School of Health Professions, Plymouth University, Plymouth, Devon, United Kingdom 2School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 3Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1010, New Zealand 4The University of Plymouth Centre for Innovations in Health and Social Care: a Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence 5School of Nursing and Midwifery, Plymouth University, Plymouth, Devon, United Kingdom.
Anna L Hatton
Keith Rome
Bridie Kent
University of Plymouth · GBAuckland University of Technology · NZUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

Department of Health CAT/CL10/007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoot and ankle devices are being developed as a method of preventing people with sensory perception loss sustaining a fall. Such devices are believed to work by reducing the likelihood of a fall by improving the balance and gait of the user.

objectivesThe objective of the review was to evaluate the effectiveness of foot and ankle devices for the prevention of falls and the improvement of balance and gait in adults with sensory perception loss. INCLUSION CRITERIA TYPES OF

participantsParticipants were community-dwelling adults with bilateral pathological sensory perception loss. TYPES OF INTERVENTION(S)/PHENOMENA OF INTEREST: The current review evaluated any foot or ankle device, including but not restricted to, all types of footwear (therapeutic and retail), insoles (customized and prefabricated) and ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs). TYPES OF STUDIES: In the absence of randomized controlled trials (RCT), the review considered experimental and epidemiological study designs, except case series, individual case reports and descriptive cross-sectional studies. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was number of falls. Secondary outcome measures were clinical or laboratory measures of balance or gait. SEARCH STRATEGY: A search for published and unpublished literature from inception to March 2015 written in the English language was conducted across a number of major electronic databases. A three-step search strategy was developed using MeSH terminology and keywords to ensure all that relevant materials are captured. METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY: Methodological quality of included studies was assessed by two reviewers, who appraised each study independently, using standardized Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. DATA EXTRACTION: Quantitative data were extracted from the studies that were identified as meeting the criteria for methodological quality using the standardized JBI data extraction tools. DATA SYNTHESIS: Due to the heterogeneity of populations, interventions and outcome measures, meta-analyses were not possible and results are presented in narrative form.

resultsNine trials (from 10 papers) involving 238 participants, (14 with multiple sclerosis and 16 with idiopathic peripheral neuropathy, 150 with diabetic neuropathy) and 58 controls were included in the review. No study reported falls as an outcome measure. The results of the included studies found that in people with sensory perception loss, postural sway improved with vibrating insoles and AFO, altering the softness and texture of the top cover had no effect on postural sway, wearing footwear over long distances or AFOs improved step-to-step consistency, and no foot and ankle device was reported to have a negative effect on the balance or gait of people with sensory perception loss. The methodological quality of the included studies was poor. No study used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology. No study incorporated a follow-up period or tested the intervention within the context of the intended clinical environment.

conclusionThere is limited evidence to suggest that footwear and insole devices can artificially alter postural stability and may reduce the step-to-step variability in adults with sensory perception loss. Varying the material properties of an insole does not notably affect static balance or gait.

Identifiers

PMID28009675
PMCPMC5437711
OpenAlexW1971540392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.