Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29451921›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

The effectiveness of non-surgical intervention (Foot Orthoses) for paediatric flexible pes planus: A systematic review: Update.

Sindhrani Dars, Hayley Uden, Helen A Banwell, Saravana Kumar

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Sindhrani DarsSchool of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8582-6367
Hayley UdenSchool of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Helen A BanwellSchool of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Saravana KumarSchool of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
University of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFlexible pes planus (flat feet) in children is a common presenting condition in clinical practice due to concerns amongst parents and caregivers. While Foot Orthoses (FOs) are a popular intervention, their effectiveness remains unclear. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to update the current evidence base for the effectiveness of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus.

methodsA systematic search of electronic databases (Cochrane, Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINHAL, SportDiscus, Scopus and PEDro) was conducted from January 2011 to July 2017. Studies of children (0-18 years) diagnosed with flexible pes planus and intervention to be any type of Foot Orthoses (FOs) were included. This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. McMaster critical review form for quantitative studies, was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a descriptive synthesis of the included studies was undertaken.

resultsOut of 606 articles identified, 11 studies (three RCTs; two case-controls; five case-series and one single case study) met the inclusion criteria. A diverse range of pre-fabricated and customised FOs were utilised and effectiveness measured through a plethora of outcomes. Summarised findings from the heterogeneous evidence base indicated that FOs may have a positive impact across a range of outcomes including pain, foot posture, gait, function and structural and kinetic measures. Despite these consistent positive outcomes reported in several studies, the current evidence base lacks clarity and uniformity in terms of diagnostic criteria, interventions delivered and outcomes measured for paediatric flexible pes planus.

conclusionThere continues to remain uncertainty on the effectiveness of FOs for paediatric flexible pes planus. Despite a number of methodological limitations, FOs show potential as a treatment method for children with flexible pes planus. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017057310.

Indexed as

Foot OrthosesAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFlatfootHumansInfantInfant, NewbornTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID29451921
PMCPMC5815602
OpenAlexW2789214404

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.