ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2018
[Forefoot relief with shoe inserts : Effects of different construction strategies].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of foot orthoses on bone alignment parameters of the foot: a cadaveric weight-bearing CT study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Plantar pressure changes in hindfoot relief devices of different designs.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShoe inserts and shoe modifications are used to reduce plantar peak pressure. The effects of different shoe inserts and shoe construction strategies for relief of the forefoot have not yet been sufficiently evaluated. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of shoe inserts and shoe construction strategies (e.g. metatarsal pad, forefoot cushioning and control) and shoe modifications (e.g. flexible or stiff) on the peak plantar pressure in the forefoot region. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this study 15 healthy subjects were recruited. Plantar pressure distribution was measured using an in-shoe system during walking (3.5km∙h
resultsThe metatarsal pad and forefoot cushioning led to a reduction of peak pressure, which was statistically significant compared to the control condition (p = 0.009). No differences were observed between both shoe inserts (p > 0.05). A comparison between stiff and flexible shoes revealed a statistically significant pressure reduction in favor of stiff shoes (p = 0.0001). The metatarsal pad led to a peak pressure increase in the midfoot of 12% and by 21% compared to control and forefoot cushioning, respectively. DISCUSSION: A peak pressure reduction in the forefoot can be achieved with a metatarsal pad or with cushioning; however, the metatarsal pad resulted in a subsequent increase in midfoot pressure. Moreover, shoe construction is crucial because a stiff shoe contributes to a better peak pressure reduction compared to a flexible shoe. Prospective clinical studies should be carried out to prove whether this results in beneficial effects for patients with metatarsalgia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.