Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31018869›Full record

Trial reportArthritis research & therapy2019

Effects of a footwear intervention on foot pain and disability in people with gout: a randomised controlled trial.

Mike Frecklington, Nicola Dalbeth, Peter McNair, Trish Morpeth, Alain C Vandal, Peter Gow, Keith Rome

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Arthritis research & therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Mike FrecklingtonHealth and Rehabilitation Research Institute, AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. mike.frecklington@aut.ac.nz.ORCID 0000-0002-5457-5235
Nicola DalbethDepartment of Medicine, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Peter McNairHealth and Rehabilitation Research Institute, AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Trish MorpethHealth and Rehabilitation Research Institute, AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Alain C VandalDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Peter GowCounties Manukau District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand.
Keith RomeHealth and Rehabilitation Research Institute, AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence supporting the long-term effect of a foot care package that includes footwear for people with gout. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a footwear intervention on foot pain and disability in people with gout over 6 months.

methodsParticipants with gout (n = 94) were randomly allocated to either a control group (podiatric care and gout education) or footwear intervention group (podiatric care and gout education plus a commercially available athletic shoe). Measurements were undertaken at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months. Primary outcome was foot pain severity. Secondary outcomes were overall pain, foot impairment/disability, footwear comfort, fit, ease and weight. Data were analysed using repeated measures models.

resultsBaseline foot pain scores were low, and no differences in foot pain scores were observed between groups over 6 months (adjusted effect estimate: - 6.7, 95% CI - 16.4 to 2.9, P = 0.17). Improvements between groups in overall pain scores (adjusted effect estimate: - 13.2, 95% CI - 22.2 to - 4.3, P < 0.01) and foot impairment/disability scores (- 4.7, 95% CI - 9.1 to - 0.3, P = 0.04) favouring the footwear intervention were observed at 2 months, but not at 4 or 6 months. Improvements between groups in footwear fit (adjusted effect estimate: - 11.1, 95% CI - 21.1 to - 1.0, P = 0.03), ease (- 13.2, 95% CI - 23.8 to - 2.7, P = 0.01) and weight (- 10.3, 95% CI - 19.8 to - 0.8, P = 0.03) favouring the footwear intervention were also observed over 6 months. Similar improvements were observed for footwear comfort at 2 and 4 months. No other differences in secondary outcomes measured were observed at 6 months (P > 0.05).

conclusionsAddition of footwear to a foot care package did not improve foot pain in people with gout. Short-term improvements in overall pain and foot impairment/disability and more durable improvements in footwear comfort and fit were observed with the footwear intervention.

trial registrationACTRN12614000209695. Registered 27 February 2014, http://www.anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.aspx?searchTxt=ACTRN12614000209695&isBasic=True.

Indexed as

ShoesAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFootGoutHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainPain ManagementPain MeasurementPatient Education as TopicTreatment OutcomeFootFoot painFootwearGout

Identifiers

PMID31018869
PMCPMC6480516

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.