Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31210785›Full record

SynthesisJournal of foot and ankle research2019

Systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of foot orthoses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Marloes Tenten-Diepenmaat, Joost Dekker, Martijn W Heymans, Leo D Roorda, Thea P M Vliet Vlieland, Marike van der Leeden

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marloes Tenten-DiepenmaatAmsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0432-0955
Joost Dekker2Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Martijn W Heymans4Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Leo D RoordaAmsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Thea P M Vliet Vlieland5Department of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Marike van der LeedenAmsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Reade · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoot orthoses (FOs) are prescribed as an important conservative treatment option in patients with foot problems related to rheumatoid arthritis. However, a broad variation in FOs is used, both in clinical practice and in research. To date, there is no overview on the outcomes of the treatment with different kinds of FOs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a specific foot problem. The objectives of the present study were to summarize the comparative effectiveness of FOs in the treatment of various foot problems in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, on the primary outcomes foot function and foot pain, and the secondary outcomes physical functioning, health related quality of life, compliance, adverse events, the costs of FOs and patient satisfaction.

methodsStudies comparing different kinds of FOs, with a presumed therapeutic effect, in the treatment of foot problems related to rheumatoid arthritis were included. A literature search was conducted in The Cochrane Central Registry for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE and PEDro up to May 18th, 2018. Data was meta-analyzed, when this was not possible qualitative data analysis was performed.

resultsTen studies were identified, with a total number of 235 patients. These studies made a comparison between different materials used (soft versus semi-rigid), types of FOs (custom-made versus ready-made; total-contact versus non-total contact), or modifications applied (metatarsal bars versus domes). Also, different techniques to construct custom-made FOs were compared (standard custom-molding techniques versus more sophisticated techniques). A medium effect for (immediate) reduction of forefoot plantar pressure was found in favor of treatment with soft FOs compared to semi-rigid FOs (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.07-1.14;

conclusionsFoot orthoses made of soft materials may lead to more (immediate) forefoot plantar pressure reduction compared to foot orthoses constructed of semi-rigid materials. Definitive high quality RCTs, with adequate sample sizes and long-term follow-up, are needed to investigate the comparative (cost-) effectiveness of different kinds of foot orthoses for the treatment of foot problems related to rheumatoid arthritis.

Indexed as

Foot OrthosesAdultArthritis, RheumatoidComparative Effectiveness ResearchCost-Benefit AnalysisEquipment DesignFemaleFootFoot DiseasesHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeFootFoot orthosesRheumatoid arthritisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31210785
PMCPMC6567436
OpenAlexW2951155133

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.